National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 Fax: 617-770-0700 www.nfpa.org MEMORANDUM To: From: NFPA Technical Committee on Liquefied Natural Gas Kimberly Shea, Administrator Technical Projects Date: May 8, 2015 Subject: NFPA 59A Second Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (F2015) According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot. OR According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot with the exception of those shown in the attched report. 28 Members Eligible to Vote 9 Not Returned (Barber, Beale, Gaughan, Helm, Humes, Micciche, Raj, Rodante, Sawchuk) 17 Affirmative on All Revisions 1 Affrimatuve with Comment on one or more Revisions (Kohout) 1 Negative on one or more Revisions (Kohout) 0 Abstentions on one or more Revisions: (names, if any) The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each second revision. There are two criteria necessary for each second revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2 / 3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined. (1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote 2 = 10 + 1 = 11) (2) Example for Affirmative 2 / 3 : Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote 1 not returned 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 ) As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Second Revision No. 18-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 2.4 ] 2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections. NFPA 52, Vehicular Gaseous Fuel Systems Code, 2013 2016 edition. NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code, 2015 edition. NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 2015 edition. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Sonia Barbosa Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Apr 03 12:34:04 EDT 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Update edition year for NFPA 52. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Kohout, Andrew Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Second Revision No. 12-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 5.3.1.1 ] 5.3.1.1 Provisions shall be made to minimize the potential of accidental discharge of LNG at containers, pipelines containing LNG, and other equipment such that a discharge from any of these does not endanger adjoining property or important process equipment and structures or reach waterways. LNG containers shall be provided with one of the following methods to contain any release: (1) An impounding area surrounding the container(s) that is formed by a natural barrier, dike, impounding wall, or combination thereof complying with 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 (2) An impounding area formed by a natural barrier, dike, excavation, impounding wall, or combination thereof complying with 5.3.2 and 5.3.3, plus a natural or man-made drainage system surrounding the container(s) that complies with 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 (3) Where the container is constructed below or partially below the surrounding grade, an impounding area formed by excavation complying with 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 (4) Secondary containment as required for double or full containment tank systems complying with 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Mar 04 11:15:50 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Specific listing of secondary containment as provided by double and full containment was added (as further qualified by 5.3.2 and 5.3.3) for direct reference by 5.3.2.5 (2). Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J.
Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Negative with Comment Kohout, Andrew This change could be perceived as an attempt to eliminate the need for a tertiary berm for double and full containment tanks. FERC staff believes a tertiary berm for double and full containment tanks is good practice as an additional layer of protection for these tanks that may be needed in certain locations to address potential common cause failures and relatively shorter operational history. Until common cause failures are addressed and there is adequate operational history, FERC staff would not endorse this proposal. of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Second Revision No. 13-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 5.3.2.5 ] 5.3.2.5* Dikes and impounding walls shall meet the following requirements: (1) Dikes, impounding walls, drainage systems, and any penetrations thereof shall be designed to withstand the full hydrostatic head of impounded LNG or flammable refrigerant, the effect of rapid cooling to the temperature of the liquid to be confined, any anticipated fire exposure, and natural forces, such as earthquakes, wind, and rain. (2) Where the outer shell of a double-wall tank complies with the requirements of 5.3.1.1, the dike shall be either the outer shell or as specified in 5.3.1.1. Where the containment integrity of such an outer shell can be affected by an inner tank failure mode, an additional impounding area that otherwise satisfies the requirements of 5.3.1.1 shall be provided. Supplemental Information File Name 59A_A.5.3.2.5_SR-13.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Mar 04 11:17:35 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The definition of full containment and double containment tanks requires containment of liquid in the event of an inner tank failure. Therefore, this requirement is struck because it would only be triggered if the container didn t meet the definition of full or double containment. Text was added to Annex A for further explanation to the user of the standard. The basis for the reference to crack arrest properties can be found in publications including the following: GRI Crack Arrest Properties of 9% Nickel Cryogenic Steels, June 1986 (GRI 86/0103). (available through the Gas Research Institute) Paper: Nine per cent nickel 28 years of reliable service in liquefied gas containment by William S Mounce (available of the web). Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot
of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Negative with Comment Kohout, Andrew According to the NFPA Manual of Style, definitions should not include requirements and they may not be as clear or enforceable. Therefore, FERC staff believes this requirement should be retained to ensure the requirements are clear.
Second Revision No. 14-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 5.3.2.6 ] 5.3.2.6 Double and full containment tank systems shall be designed and constructed such that in the case of a spill and secondary container fire, the secondary container wall will contain the LNG for the duration of the fire. (A) In the case of a fire confined to the inner tank, the secondary container wall shall retain sufficient structural integrity to prevent collapse, which can cause damage to and leakage from the primary container. (B) The tanks shall also be designed and constructed such that in the case of a fire in the primary or secondary container of an adjacent tank, the secondary container shall retain sufficient structural integrity to prevent collapse, which can cause damage to and leakage from the primary container. 5.3.2.7 Double and full containment tank systems shall also be designed and constructed such that in the case of a fire in the primary or secondary container of an adjacent tank, the secondary container shall retain sufficient structural integrity to prevent collapse, which can cause damage to and leakage from the primary container. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Mar 05 16:35:48 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: This condition is already covered by the parent text 5.3.2.6 by referring to double containment. If the secondary container caused leakage from the primary container, it still needs to contain the liquid from the primary container. Since Full Containment was struck from 5.3.2.6, a new paragraph number which applies to both double and full containment needed. All fires in adjacent tanks are applicable. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Negative with Comment Kohout, Andrew Sufficient justification has not been provided to eliminate the failure mode and subsequent consideration of cascading failures. FERC staff has requested that if the NFPA 59A committee wishes to eliminate the need to consider tank roof fires there should be an evaluation of the tank design codes and standards to ensure that all causes of tank roof failures and fires are addressed. Until this occurs, FERC staff could not support the removal of this requirement. of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Second Revision No. 15-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 5.3.4.2 ] 5.3.4.2 Full and double construction LNG storage containers containment tank systems of greater than 70,000 gal (265 m 3 ) water capacity shall be separated from adjoining adjacent LNG storage containers such that a fire in one container or impoundment an adjacent single or double containment impoundment or from a design spill will not cause loss of containment from adjacent containers. This shall be accomplished by ensuring that no part of the adjacent storage container roof, walls, or its impoundment structure reaches a temperature at which the strength of the material of the container roof, wall, or its impoundment is reduced to a level where the LNG tank, roof, or impoundment loses its structural integrity. The application of engineering analyses shall be used to determine this temperature by including the following conditions in the analyses: (1) The analyses shall be performed for a fire involving the complete loss of containment of the primary liquid container to an impoundment area that complies with the requirements of 5.3.2.1 A fire involving the complete loss of containment of a container to an impoundment area that complies with the requirements of 5.3.2.1 A fire over the whole surface of the liquid contained in the tank, assuming the roof is completely lost (2) The analyses shall account for the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) The duration of the fire, the radiant heat emission characteristics of the fire, and the physical attributes of the fire under the anticipated atmospheric conditions The atmospheric conditions producing the maximum separation distances shall be used except for conditions that occur less than 5 percent of the time based on recorded data for the area and using a LNG fire model in accordance with 5.3.3.4 Active or passive systems to reduce thermal heat flux incident on the surface or to limit the surface temperature The materials, design, and methods of construction of the target LNG tank being analyzed Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Mar 05 16:40:04 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The correct term for tank types was added. The adjacent tank fire for which full and double containment tanks are to be protected against is limited to impoundments of single and double containment tank types and spill impoundments. Proper terms for the type of tank are used to reduce confusion. The adjacent tank fire is from the impoundment / secondary containment area. There is no need to define the event further.
0 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Negative with Comment Kohout, Andrew Sufficient justification has not been provided to eliminate the failure mode and subsequent consideration of cascading failures. FERC staff has requested that if the NFPA 59A committee wishes to eliminate the need to consider tank roof fires there should be an evaluation of the tank design codes and standards to ensure that all causes of tank roof failures and fires are addressed. Until this occurs, FERC staff could not support the removal of this requirement.
1 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Second Revision No. 11-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 7.2.1.1 ] 7.2.1.1 Storage tank systems shall comply with the requirements of API 625, Tank Systems for Refrigerated Liquefied Gas Storage, and the additional provisions of this chapter. The API 625 risk assessment shall be approved by the AHJ. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Mar 04 10:01:13 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This requirement assures the risk assessment includes all risks to the satisfaction of the AHJ. There have been concerns about some of the scenarios chosen for the risk assessment. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher
Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Affirmative with Comment Kohout, Andrew We agree the AHJ must have the ability to review and approve the risk assessment for the storage tank design before it is allowed to be sited, constructed, and operated. 2 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
3 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Second Revision No. 1-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 10.7.2 ]
4 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM 10.7.2*
5 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Fixed electrical equipment and wiring installed within the classified areas specified in Table 10.7.2 shall comply with Table 10.7.2 and Figure 10.7.2(a) through Figure 10.7.2(f) and shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 70. Table 10.7.2 Electrical Area Classification Part A B C D Location Group D, Division a LNG storage containers with vacuum breakers Inside containers 2 Entire container interior LNG storage container area Indoors 1 Entire room Outdoor aboveground containers (other than small containers) b 1 Outdoor belowground containers 1 Nonfired LNG process areas containing pumps, compressors, heat exchangers, pipelines, connections, small containers, and so forth Indoors with adequate ventilation c 2 Outdoors in open air at or above grade Pits, trenches, or sumps located in or adjacent to Division 1 or 2 areas 2 2 2 1 2 Extent of Classified Area Open area between a high-type dike and the container wall where dike wall height exceeds distance between dike and container walls [See see Figure 10.7.2(c). ] Within 15 ft (4.5 m) in all directions from container walls and roof plus area inside a low-type diked or impounding area up to the height of the dike impoundment wall [S s ee Figure 10.7.2(b). ] Within any open space between container walls and surrounding grade or dike [S s eefigure 10.7.2(d).] Within 15 ft (4.5 m) in all directions from roof and sides [S s ee Figure 10.7.2(d).] Entire room and any adjacent room not separated by a gastight partition and 15 ft (4.5 m) beyond any wall or roof ventilation discharge vent or louver Within 15 ft (4.5 m) in all directions from this equipment and within the cylindrical volume between the horizontal equator of the sphere and grade [See Figure 10.7.2(a).] Entire pit, trench, or sump Within 15 ft (4.5 m) in all directions, above grade [see Figure 10.7.2(a)] E Discharge from relief valves 1 F Operational bleeds, drips, vents, or drains Indoors with adequate ventilation c 1 2 2 Within 5 ft (1.5 m) in all directions from point of discharge Beyond 5 ft (1.5 m) but within 15 ft (4.5 m) in all directions from point of discharge Within 5 ft (1.5 m) in all directions from point of discharge Beyond 5 ft (1.5 m) and entire room and 15 ft (4.5 m) beyond any wall or roof ventilation discharge vent or louver
6 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Part G H I Location Outdoors in open air at or above grade Tank car, tank vehicle, and container loading and unloading Group D, Division a Indoors with adequate ventilation c 1 Outdoors in open air at or above grade Electrical seals and vents specified in 10.7.5 through 10.7.7 Marine terminal unloading areas [S s ee Figure 10.7.2(f).] 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 Extent of Classified Area Within 5 ft (1.5 m) in all directions from point of discharge Beyond 5 ft (1.5 m) but within 15 ft (4.5 m) in all directions from point of discharge Within 5 ft (1.5 m) in all directions from connections regularly made or disconnected for product transfer Beyond 5 ft (1.5 m) and entire room and 15 ft (4.5 m) beyond any wall or roof ventilation discharge vent or louver Within 5 ft (1.5 m) in all directions from connections regularly made or disconnected for product transfer Beyond 5 ft (1.5 m) but within 15 ft (4.5 m) in all directions from a point where connections are regularly made or disconnected and within the cylindrical volume between the horizontal equator of the sphere and grade [S s ee Figure 10.7.2(a). ] Within 15 ft (4.5 m) in all directions from the equipment and within the cylindrical volume between the horizontal equator of the sphere and grade Within 15 ft (4.5 m) in all directions, above the deck, from the open sump a See Article 500 in NFPA 70 for definitions of classes, groups, and divisions. Article 505 may can be used as an alternate to Article 500 for classification of hazardous areas using an equivalent zone classification to the division classifications specified in Table 10.7.2. Most of the flammable vapors and gases found within the facilities covered by NFPA 59A are classified as Group D. Ethylene is classified as Group C. Much of the available electrical equipment for hazardous locations is suitable for both groups. b Small containers are portable and of less than 200 gal (760 L) capacity. c Ventilation is considered adequate where provided in accordance with the provisions of this standard. Figure 10.7.2(a) Extent of Classified Area Around Containers. Figure 10.7.2(b) Dike Height Less Than Distance from Container to Dike (H < x).
7 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Figure 10.7.2(c) Dike Height Greater Than Distance from Container to Dike (H > x). Figure 10.7.2(d) Container with Liquid Level Below Grade or Below Top of Dike. Figure 10.7.2(e) Full Containment Container. Figure 10.7.2(f) Classification of a Marine Terminal Handling LNG. Supplemental Information File Name 59A_Table_10.7.2_PC_28_SR-1.docx Description
8 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM 59A_Figure_10.7.2_f_SR-1.pdf Revised figure 10.7.2(f) to show Division 2 zone around open sump Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Mar 03 12:18:30 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Two section of Table 10.7.2, Parts D and I, only define the Division 1 area, but do not specify a Division 2 area adjacent to it. NFPA 70, 500.5 (B)(2) defines a Division 2 area as an area that is adjacent to a division 1 area. NFPA 30, Table 7.3.3 and NFPA 58, Table 6.23.2.2 each have similar requirements for a Division 2 area beyond the extents of a Division 1 area. Added Division 2 information for items D and I to table 10.7.2 using existing Division 2 distance requirements from this table. Updated Figure 10.7.2(f) to show 15 ft. dimension from open sump. Response Message: Public Comment No. 28-NFPA 59A-2014 [Section No. 10.7.2] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat
Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Affirmative with Comment Kohout, Andrew While this improves upon the standard, other standards (e.g. API 500) may have stricter requirements for more volatile flammables that should also be considered. 9 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
0 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Second Revision No. 2-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 12.2.1 ] 12.2.1.1* Protection installed as a result of the evaluation in 12.2.2 shall be designed, engineered, installed and tested based upon fire protection equipment standards incorporated by reference adhering to the following standards: (1) NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers (2) NFPA 11, Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam (3) NFPA 12, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems (4) NFPA 12A, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems (5) NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems (6) NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems (7) NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (8) NFPA 16, Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems (9) NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems (10) NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection (11) NFPA 22, Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection (12) NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances (13) NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (14) NFPA 101, Life Safety Code (15) NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems (16) NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems (17) NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus (18) NFPA 1961, Standard on Fire Hose (19) NFPA 1962, Standard for the Care, Use, Inspection, Service Testing, and Replacement of Fire Hose, Couplings, Nozzles, and Fire Hose Appliances (20) NFPA 1963, Standard for Fire Hose Connections (21) NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems Supplemental Information File Name A.12.2.1.1_edited_DJG.docx Description Annex material-final Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State:
1 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Mar 03 13:32:07 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: This revision addresses design and installation requirements for fire protection systems not previously addressed. The movement of the NFPA document lists from the Annex to the body of the texts make this enforceable code. Response Message: Public Comment No. 9-NFPA 59A-2014 [New Section after A.12.2.1] Public Comment No. 8-NFPA 59A-2014 [Section No. 12.2.1] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L.
2 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Scaraggi, Anthony J. Affirmative with Comment Kohout, Andrew While this improves upon the standard, other codes, such as NFPA 3, ISA 12.13.01, 12.13.02, 12.13.04, ISA 84.00.07 should also be considered to be included.
Second Revision No. 3-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 12.4 ] 12.4 Gas, Fire, and Leak Detection. 12.4.1 Areas, including enclosed buildings, that can have the presence of flammable gas, LNG or flammable refrigerant spills, and fire shall be monitored as required by the evaluation in 12.2.1. 12.4.2 Gas Detection. 12.4.2.1 Continuously monitored low-temperature sensors or flammable gas detection systems shall sound an alarm at the plant site and at a constantly attended location if the plant site is not attended continuously. 12.4.2.2 Flammable gas detection systems shall activate an audible and a visual alarm at not more than 25 percent of the lower flammable limit of the gas or vapor being monitored. 12.4.3 Fire Detectors. 12.4.3.1 Fire detectors shall activate an audible and a visual alarm at the plant site and at a constantly attended location if the plant site is not attended continuously. 12.4.3.2 If so determined by an evaluation in accordance with 12.2.1, fire detectors shall be permitted to activate portions of the ESD system. 12.4.4 Leak Detection. Leak detection shall activate an audible and visual alarm at the plant site and at a constantly attended location if the plant is not continuously attended. 12.4.5* The detection systems shall be designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 72. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Mar 03 14:08:21 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Low-temperature sensors are being moved to a new section in the code which specifically addresses leak detection. Revised the section title to include gas detection. Gas and leak detection are different in the technology, objective, and quantification and should be treated independently. This new section specifies leak detection requirements which are different than gas detection requirements. Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 59A-2014 [Section No. 12.4] Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 59A-2014 [Section No. 12.4.4] Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 59A-2014 [New Section after 12.4.4] Public Comment No. 5-NFPA 59A-2014 [Section No. 12.4.2.1] Ballot Results 3 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
4 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Affirmative with Comment Kohout, Andrew Section 12.4.2.1 should also consider using consistent language of "activate an audible and visual alarm" as oppose to "sound an alarm"
5 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Second Revision No. 5-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 13.6.2.1 ] 13.6.2.1 The minimum distance from the edge of an impoundment or container drainage system serving aboveground and mounded containers larger than 1000 gal (3.8 m 3 ) shall be in accordance with Table 13.6.2.1 for each of the following: (1) Nearest offsite building (2) The property line that can be built upon (3) Spacing between containers Table 13.6.2.1 Distances from Containers and Exposures Container Water Capacity Minimum Distance from Edge of Impoundment or Container Drainage System to Offsite Buildings and Property Lines That Can Be Built Upon Minimum Distance Between Storage Containers gal m 3 ft m ft m 1000 2000 3.8 7.6 15 4.6 5 1.5 2001 18,000 18,001 30,000 7.6 56.8 68.1 56.8 68.1 114 30,001 70,000 114 265 75 23 >70,000 >265 25 7.6 5 1.5 50 15 5 1.5 0.7 times the container diameter [100 ft (30 m) minimum] 1 4 of the sum of the diameters of adjacent containers [5 ft (1.5 m) minimum] Supplemental Information File Name 59A_Table_13.6.2.1_PC-26_SR-5.docx Description Table with tracked-change revisions. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Mar 03 14:44:20 EST 2015 Committee Statement
6 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Committee Statement: Response Message: Revise the conversion of 18,000 gallons to 68.1 cubic meters instead of the current 56.8 cubic meters. Public Comment No. 26-NFPA 59A-2014 [Section No. 13.6.2.1] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Kohout, Andrew Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J.
Second Revision No. 6-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 13.6.3 ] 13.6.3 Underground LNG tanks shall be installed in accordance with Table 13.6.3. Table 13.6.3 Distances from Underground Containers and Exposures Container Water Capacity Minimum Distance from Buildings and the Adjoining Property Line That Can Be Built Upon Distance Between Containers gal m 3 ft m ft m <18,000 18,000 30,000 <15.8 68.1 15.8 68.1 114 15 4.6 15 4.6 25 7.6 15 4.6 30,001 100,000 >114 40 12.2 15 4.6 Supplemental Information File Name 59A_Table_13.6.3_PC-27_SR-6.docx Description Table with tracked-change revisions. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Mar 03 14:48:10 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Revise the conversion of 18,000 gallons to 68.1 cubic meters. Response Message: Public Comment No. 27-NFPA 59A-2014 [Section No. 13.6.3] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 7 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
8 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Kohout, Andrew Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J.
9 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Second Revision No. 7-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 15.4.1 ] 15.4.1* Both individual risks and societal risk(s) values shall be evaluated in the area around the LNG plant by using quantitative risk assessment analysis (QRA) protocol. The generally accepted QRA protocol, specified in any one of the following publications shall be used in assessing the risks: (1) American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, 2000 (2) Five Steps to Risk Assessment, INDC 163, rev.1, Health and Safety Executive, 1998 (3) Risk Criteria for Land-use Planning in the Vicinity of Major Industrial Hazards, HMSO, Health and Safety Executive, 1989 TNO, Guidelines for Quantitative Risk Assessment, RIVM, The Purple Book, Netherlands, 2005 Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Risk Criteria for Land-use Planning in the Vicinity of Major Industrial Hazards, HMSO, HSE 1989 and Five Steps to Risk Assessment, INDC 163, rev.1, HSE 1998, United Kingdom European Norm Standard, BSI EN 31010:2010, Risk Management Risk Assessment Techniques (4) Risk Management Risk Assessment Techniques, BSI EN 31010:2010, European Norm Standard (5) TNO, Guidelines for Quantitative Risk Assessment, RIVM, The Purple Book, Netherlands, 2005 Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Mar 03 16:27:51 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The word 'assessment' is changed to 'analysis' to better describe the protocol and methodology that are to be used. A Quantitative risk analysis (QRA) is performed, then the risk assessment is done by comparison to criteria and evaluation of the risk drivers. Response Message: Public Comment No. 12-NFPA 59A-2014 [Section No. 15.4.1] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments
0 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Negative with Comment Kohout, Andrew While we recognize there are different QRA methodologies that are used internationally, the added references have not been reviewed by the committee. Moreover, there is a need to have a consistent approach for siting among facilities or else there is no standard and siting will be driven to the most favorable results that could conflict with results from other methodologies, which would complicate siting decisions for an AHJ and the public.
1 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Second Revision No. 8-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 15.4.2 ] 15.4.2* The selected QRA procedure shall be approved by the AHJ. Supplemental Information File Name SR-8_A.15.4.2.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Mar 03 16:42:37 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Added new annex section to provide additional information on the QRA procedures may include. Public Comment No. 14-NFPA 59A-2014 [Section No. 15.4.2] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H.
Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Affirmative with Comment Kohout, Andrew We agree the AHJ must have the ability to review and approve the QRA procedure before it is allowed to be used, which would include all parts described in the annex. 2 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
3 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Second Revision No. 9-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 15.6.1 ] 15.6.1* The annual probability of LNG and other hazardous material releases from various equipment, for scenarios identified in 15.4.1 and 15.4.2, shall be based on Table 15.6.1. Table 15.6.1 Example Component Failure Database Component Annual Probability of Failure Atmospheric cryogenic tanks (1) Instantaneous failure of primary container and outer shell, release of entire contents (single containment tank) 5E-07 (2) Instantaneous failure of primary container and outer shell, release of entire contents (double containment tank) 1.25E-08 (3) Instantaneous failure of primary and secondary container, release of entire contents (full containment tank) 1E-08 Pressurized storage (Containers) instantaneous release of entire contents 5E-07 Pressure relief valves outflow at the maximum rate 2E-05 Process equipment (1) Pumps catastrophic failure 1E-04 (2) Compressors with gasket catastrophic failure 1E-04 (3) Heat exchanger instantaneous release of entire contents from plate heat exchanger 5E-05 Transfer equipment rupture of loading/unloading arm 3E-08 Annual probability of Piping aboveground failure per meter (1) Rupture for nominal diameter <3 in. ( 75 mm) 1E-06 (2) Rupture for nominal diameter from 3 in. ( 75 mm) up to and including < nominal diameter < 6 in. ( 150 mm) 3E-07 (3) Rupture for nominal diameter >6 in. ( 150) mm 1E-07 Supplemental Information File Name 59A_Table_15.6.1_PC-7_SR-9.docx Description Table with tracked-change revisions. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Mar 03 17:20:11 EST 2015 Committee Statement
4 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Committee Statement: The ranges symbols for "Piping - aboveground" were revised to include all possible scenarios. Made primary unit inches for these values. Response Message: Public Comment No. 7-NFPA 59A-2014 [Section No. 15.6.1] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Affirmative with Comment Kohout, Andrew While this does clarify the failure rates for 3-inch diameter and 6-inch diameter piping, there has never been any justification for the failure rates provided. FERC staff believes there need to be an evaluation of failure rates
5 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM among datasets to support the selection of any failure rates provided.
Second Revision No. 10-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. 15.10.1 ] 15.10.1 Individual risk acceptability criteria specified in Table 15.10.1 shall be used. Table 15.10.1 Criteria for Tolerability of Individual Risk (IR) from Injury Due to Exposure to Dangerous Dose or Higher Zone 1 Criterion Annual Frequency IR > 10-5 Zone 2 10-6 IR 10-5 Zone 3 3 10-7 IR 10-6 Remarks Not permitted: Residential, office, and retail Permitted: Occasionally occupied developments (e.g., pump houses, transformer stations) Not permitted: Shopping centers, large-scale retail outlets, restaurants, etc. Permitted: Work places, retail and ancillary services, residences in areas of 28 to 90 persons/hectare density Not permitted: Churches, schools, hospitals, major public assembly areas, and other sensitive establishments Permitted: All other structures and activities Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Dan Gorham Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Mar 03 18:07:06 EST 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Revised the inequality for Zone 1 Individual Risk value. The current symbol does not allow for siting and was not the intent of the committee. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention 6 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Affirmative with Comment Kohout, Andrew This provides clarification on one of FERC staff's previous comments, however numerous conflicts still exist that would need addressing. 7 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM
8 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Second Revision No. 17-NFPA 59A-2015 [ Section No. A.12.2 ] A.12.2 For information on fire extinguishing protection systems, see the following: NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers NFPA 11, Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam NFPA 12, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems NFPA 12A, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection NFPA 16, Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection NFPA 22, Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances (1) NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems (2) NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting (3) NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems NFPA 1961, Standard on Fire Hose NFPA 1962, Standard for the Inspection, Care, and Use of Fire Hose, Couplings, and Nozzles and the Service Testing of Fire Hose NFPA 1963, Standard for Fire Hose Connections NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: DANIEL GORHAM Organization: NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Mar 24 08:35:17 EDT 2015 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Revised A.12.2 to include fire protection system documents not addressed in the body of the standard.
9 of 39 5/7/2015 9:50 AM Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 28 Eligible Voters 9 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Barber, Donald Beale, Jeffrey P. Gaughan, James J. Helm, Charles A. Humes, Chris E. Micciche, Peter A. Raj, Phani K. Rodante, Thomas V. Sawchuk, Jeffrey H. Affirmative All Blanchard, John M. Bourne, Christopher Brightwell, Jeffrey K. Butler, David T. Convery, Pat Fessenden, Mark E. Gavelli, Filippo Gieskes, Constantyn Hoffmann, Richard A. Jablonski, Jay J. Legatos, Nicholas A. Madison, Joel V. Nicotra, Antonino Paul, Kenneth L. Poe, Gilford W. Regan, James J. Ritz, Kevin L. Scaraggi, Anthony J. Affirmative with Comment Kohout, Andrew Note NFPA 25 is required by 13.18.4.5(C)(2)