Public Comment No. 13-NFPA 30-2013 [ Section No. 2.3.3 ] 2.3.3 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. ASTM A 395/A395M, Standard Specification for Ferritic Ductile Iron Pressure -Retaining Castings for Use at Elevated Temperatures, 1999 (reaffirmed 2009). ASTM D 5/D5M, Standard Test Method for Penetration of Bituminous Materials, 2006 2013. ASTM D 56, Standard Test Method for Flash Point by Tag Closed Cup Tester, 2005 (reaffirmed 2010). ASTM D 86, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure, 2011 2012. ASTM D 92, Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup Tester, 2012 2012b. ASTM D 93, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester, 2011 2012. ASTM D 323, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Reid Method), 2008. ASTM D 3278, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed-Cup Apparatus, 1996 (reaffirmed 2011). ASTM D 3828, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Small Scale Closed Cup Tester, 2009 2012a. ASTM D 4359, Standard Test for Determining Whether a Material is a Liquid or a Solid, 1990 (reaffirmed 2012). ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2012 2012a. ASTM F 852, Standard Specification for Portable Gasoline Containers for Consumer Use, 2008. ASTM F 976, Specification for Portable Kerosine and Diesel Containers for Consumer Use, 2008. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment standards date updates Submitter Information Verification Page 1 of 9
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler Organization: GBH International Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed May 01 23:58:55 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Accepted Action: Resolution: SR-1-NFPA 30-2013 Statement: The NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Fundamentals agrees with the updating of these citations to referenced documents to reflect their current editions. Copyright Assignment I, Marcelo Hirschler, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Comment (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in which this Public Comment in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Public Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this copyright assignment. By checking this box I affirm that I am Marcelo Hirschler, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that will, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a handwritten signature Page 2 of 9
Public Comment No. 8-NFPA 30-2013 [ Section No. 3.3.48 ] 3.3.48* Safety Can. A listed container of not more than 5.3 gal (20 L) capacity having a springclosing lid and spout cover, and so designed that it will safely relieve internal pressure when subjected to fire exposure. Each Safety Can shall have a removable screen (or strainer) of a corrosion resistant material provided in each fill and pour opening. The screen shall be removable for cleaning or in the event it would inhibit the flow based on the viscosity of the liquids being stored. Additional Proposed Changes File Name NFPAPublicCommentForm.pdf Description Approved Cover Sheet Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment It is called a "screen" by UL and a "flame arrester" by FM. By any definition/purpose, it is required equipment by UL for Listing and/or by FM for Approval of a Safety Can. In the field, our representatives have run across end users who have removed these devises from their Safety Cans. Let's just call it a screen for our purposes here. This request is to include the screen in the NFPA's definition of a Safety Can to preclude end users unnecessarily removing the screens/flash arrester. I believe the NFPA should support UL's and FM's requirement for this devise no matter what the laboratory's definition or purpose is to require it. And in the event that this devise could help avoid an accident who would not want to require its use in the field. This is the basis of my request. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Glen Carter Organization: Justrite Manufacturing Company Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Apr 19 10:56:31 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Page 3 of 9
Public Comment No. 19-NFPA 30-2013 [ Section No. A.6.5.1(8) ] A.6.5.1(8) With respect to frictional heat or sparks, it is recognized that there is a need to control sources of ignition, including mechanical sparks from hand tools, that have sufficient energy to ignite flammable vapors. Studies, anecdotes, codes, and referenced standards (e.g., API 2214, Spark Ignition Properties of Hand Tools ) and standards show that there is a potential for hand tool sparks to ignite flammable vapors from a limited number of chemicals and under certain unique conditions. These include flammable liquids with low minimum ignition energies, operations in which flammable or combustible liquids are heated, and atypical spark generation that can occur between specific types of hand tools and struck surfaces (i.e., thermite reactions or impact of steel tools on quartzitic materials). Even spark -resistant tools might not provide suitable protection against ignition. For example, hard metal particles can become imbedded in the relatively soft metal of spark-resistant tools, and these particles can cause sparks when the tools are used. NFPA 30 requires analyses, such as job safety analyses or activity hazard analyses, of the hazards and risks of a given task and the application of appropriate protective measures to prevent or mitigate the hazards and risks. This includes identification and mitigation of ignition risk from multiple sources, including hand tools. Due to the complexity of the numerous operations involving flammable liquids, NFPA 30 cannot address all conditions in which spark-resistant tools should be made mandatory, might be advisable, or are unnecessary to help control the ignition risk of any given operation. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Page 4 of 9
THis comment on Public Input No. 24-NFPA 30-2012. We believe the committee intends to provide guidance on controlling mechanical sparks from hand tools. However, we are perplexed by some of the committee statements and feel compelled to respond: The committee stated that the action taken during the previous document revision cycle as written in 2012 edition reflects the committee s intent and provides sufficient guidance to the user. The fact that API 2214 is currently referenced in this context is contradictory to the guidance. API 2214 is misleading and undermines safe work practices. API 2214 even contradicts other API documents as well as API members publications. For example, API document, Safety Data Sheets Petroleum Industry Practices, presents a summary of how petroleum industry companies develop and distribute Safety Data Sheets for the purpose of hazard communication. The Crude Oil safety data sheet example requires non-sparking tools in Precautionary Statements, Accidental Release Measures, and Handling and Storage sections. Similarly, API members such as Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips, Chevron, BP, and Occidental Oil & Gas regularly require the use of non-sparking tools under Accidental Release Measures and/or Handling and Storage sections in the MSDS s for their petroleum products. API members clearly recognize the need for non-sparking tools in their safety manuals as well when working with and around flammable liquids. For example, 2010 BP Team Alaska Safety Handbook provides a quick reference for many safety policies and operating practices for all BPX and contractor employees. On page 214 under Tool Usage, item 10, Non-sparking hand tools such as non-ferrous/brass should always be considered over ferrous, spark producing tools in classified areas where hydrocarbons are present. The point is that API 2214 denounces the use of non-sparking tools in all hydrocarbon environments. It recognizes and serves no purpose for guidance on controlling mechanical sparks from hand tools. Therefore, referencing API 2214 contradicts the intent of the guidance. Also, proper maintenance, use and care are integral components of using equipment safety and not specific to non-sparking tools. Detailed discussion of these topics is out of scope of NFPA 30. In summary, current NFPA 30 text in question provides contradictory guidance on the use of non-sparking tools. The committee also stated that..the language in question is not in conflict with other existing standards. In fact, current NFPA text in question conflicts directly with the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) and other existing national standards and industry best practices. OSHA updated HCS to align with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) in 2012. The updated HCS became effective May 25, 2012. One of the mandatory major changes to HCS is inclusion of precautionary statements on the label to describe measures that should be taken to minimize or prevent adverse effects resulting from exposure to a hazardous chemical or improper storage or handling. OSHA HCS requires non-sparking tool use as a mandatory preventive precautionary statement for hazard category 1, 2, and 3 flammable liquids with no conditions or limits of chemicals for use. OSHA HCS flammable liquid hazard category Category 1 Flash Point <73.4 F(23 C) Boiling Point <=95 F(35 C) Category 2 Flash Point <73.4 F(23 C) Boiling Point >95 F(35 C) Category 3 >=73.4 F(23 C) & <=140 F(60 C) NFPA Flammable Liquids classification Class IA Flash Point <73 F(22.8 C) Boiling Point <100 F(37.8 C) Class IB Flash Point <73 F(22.8 C) Boiling Point =>100 F(37.8 C) Page 5 of 9
Class IC =>73 F(22.8 C) but <100 F(37.8 C) NFPA Combustible Liquids classification Class II Flash Point =>100 F(37.8 ) & <140 F(60 C) NFPA class IA liquids and class IB flammable liquids are OSHA hazard category 1 or 2 flammable liquids. NFPA 1C and class II liquids are OSHA hazard category 3 flammable liquids. NFPA 30 FAQs, Question 2 What are common examples of the various flammable and combustible liquids classified by NFPA 30? contains a listing of commonly used flammable and combustible liquids: Class IA Diethyl Ether, Ethylene Oxide, some light crude oils Class IB Motor and Aviation Gasolines, Toluene, Lacquers, Lacquer Thinner Class IC Xylene, some paints, some solvent based cements Class II Diesel Fuel, Paint Thinner Under OSHA HCS, ALL of these common flammable/combustible liquids listed above will now require non-sparking tools as a mandatory preventive measure for safe handling or use. Clearly, current statement regarding limited number of chemicals and under certain unique conditions. contradicts the new OSHA HCS standard. Other national standards and industry best practices also routinely require or recommend use of non-sparking tools for handling flammable liquids, a few examples: GHS 4th edition (2011), Annex 3, precautionary statement P242 requires Use only nonsparking tools for hazard category 1, 2 and 3 flammable liquids with no conditions for use. NFPA 410 Standard on Aircraft Maintenance, 2010 requires non-sparking scrapers to remove sealant when repair fuel tanks. Published by Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), The Emergency Response Guide serves as an aid to first responders during the initial response phase of an incident. Many ERG Guides reference the need for non-sparking tools. For example, ERG Guide 128 references the need with gasoline and kerosene. Furthermore, OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1910.120 recognizes the value of the ERG by requiring responders to be trained regarding its use. ANSI Z400.1-2010 Hazardous Workplace Chemicals Hazard Evaluation and Safety Data Sheet and Precautionary Labeling Preparation provides guidance on SDS creation and prompts manufacturers to consider the need for non-sparking tools in the Handling and Storage as well as Accidental Release Sections. American Chemistry Council Butadiene Product Stewardship Guidance Manual recommends non-sparking tools use while working on or near butadiene-containing equipment The list goes on... Current NFPA 30 text in question indeed conflicts with existing national standards or industry best practices. We respectfully request the Committee to reconsider and provide clearer guidance on controlling mechanical sparks from hand tools. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: MINDY WANG Organization: Ampco Safety Tools Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri May 03 12:50:32 EDT 2013 Page 6 of 9
Committee Statement Committee Rejected but see related SR Action: Resolution: SR-18-NFPA 30-2013 Statement: The NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Fundamentals has reviewed and discussed this issue on numerous occasions and remains concerned that a mandatory use of spark resistant tools is not technically justified for all liquids in all applications. The revised Annex discussion provides adequate guidance for companies to determine when such use is appropriate. The Committee considered the use of the GHS labeling standards by the submitter as support for the proposed language. The Committee does not agree with the GHS requirement and has addressed this in the (new) third paragraph of the Annex discussion. Further, the Committee points out the following statement from the final rule, printed in the Federal Register, Volume 77, Number 58, March 26, 2012, Pages 17574 17896: In addition, where there are concerns, supported by evidence, about the applicability of a statement to a particular product, the chemical manufacturer or importer may revise the statements as appropriate for the situation. Appendix C.2.4.8 states: If the chemical manufacturer, importer, or responsible party can demonstrate that a precautionary statement is inappropriate to a specific substance or mixture, the precautionary statement may be omitted from the label. Further, the document identifies responsible party as someone who can provide additional information on the hazardous chemical and appropriate emergency procedures, if necessary. Copyright Assignment I, MINDY WANG, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Comment (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in which this Public Comment in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Public Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this copyright assignment. By checking this box I affirm that I am MINDY WANG, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that will, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a handwritten signature Page 7 of 9
Public Comment No. 14-NFPA 30-2013 [ Section No. I.1.2.6 ] I.1.2.6 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. ASTM D 4206, Standard Test Method for Sustained Burning of Liquid Mixtures Using the Small Scale Open-Cup Apparatus, 1996 (reaffirmed 2007). ASTM D 6469, Standard Guide for Microbial Contamination in Fuels and Fuel Systems,2011 2012. ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2012 2012a. ASTM E 502, Standard Test Method for Selection and Use of ASTM Standards for the Determination of Flash Point of Chemicals by Closed Cup Methods, 2007 2007e1. ASTM Manual on Flash Point Standards and Their Use, 1992. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment standards date updates Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler Organization: GBH International Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu May 02 00:02:32 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Accepted Action: Resolution: SR-19-NFPA 30-2013 Statement: The NFPA 30 T/C on Fundamentals agrees with the updating of these citations to referenced documents to reflect their current editions. Copyright Assignment I, Marcelo Hirschler, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public Comment (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in which this Public Comment in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Public Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this copyright assignment. Page 8 of 9
By checking this box I affirm that I am Marcelo Hirschler, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that will, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a handwritten signature Page 9 of 9