correlating committee on combustible dusts (cmd-aac)€¦ · october/november 2016. note that since...

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

Correlating Committee on Combustible Dusts

(CMD-AAC)

Drury Plaza Hotel San Antonio Riverwalk

105 South St Mary’s Street

San Antonio, TX 78205

November 29, 2016 – December 2, 2016

1. Chair’s welcome, call to order, and opening remarks at 8:00 a.m. CDT

2. Self-introduction of Committee Members and Guests

3. Approval of Minutes from the October 2015 NFPA 654, 664 and 61 Second Draft

meeting on New Orleans, LA (see Attachment A)

4. Staff liaison updates (Committee Roster, Schedule and Correlating Committee duties and

responsibilities) (see Attachment B)

5. NFPA 652 and 484 First Draft Reports

a. Review and act on Public Inputs and First Revisions

b. Review First Draft TC Final Ballot Results

c. Develop First Correlating Revisions (as appropriate) – see attached sections on

Correlating Committees from Regulations Governing Committee Projects

6. New Business

7. Set dates for upcoming meetings

8. Meeting will adjourn on Friday, December 2, 2016 at noon

CORRELATING COMMITTEE ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS

Minutes of Meeting – NFPA 654, 664, and 61 Second Draft Meeting New Orleans, LA

October 27-29, 2015

Member Attending

Kevin Kreitman – chair Yes Principal

Chris Aiken Yes Principal

Matthew Bujewski Yes Principal

John Cholin No Principal

Scott Davis No Principal

Henry Febo Yes Principal

Walter Frank Yes Principal

Robert Gombar Yes Principal

Donald Hayden No Principal

Edward LaPine Yes Principal

Art Mattos Yes Principal

Steve McAlister No Principal

Jack Osborn Yes Principal

Bill Stevenson No Principal

Jérôme Taveau No Principal

Craig Froehling Yes Alternate

Jason Krbec Yes – by phone Alternate

John LeBlanc No Alternate

Adam Morrison No Alternate

Matthew Chibbaro No Nonvoting Member

Mark Drake Yes Nonvoting Member

Paul Hart No Nonvoting Member

Tim Myers Yes Nonvoting Member

Jason Reason Yes Nonvoting Member

Mark Runyon No Nonvoting Member

William Hamilton No Alt. to Nonvoting Member

Susan Bershad Yes NFPA staff

1.0 The meeting was called to order at 8 am by Kevin Kreitman, chair. The attendees,

guests, and those attending via the web conference made self-introductions.

kcarey

Text Box

ATTACHMENT A

2.0 NFPA staff reviewed the remaining schedule for the A2016 cycle and the committee membership. There are currently 15 voting principals on the correlating committee.

3.0 The committee reviewed and approved the minutes of the First Draft Meeting for NFPA 655 on June 10th, 2015.

4.0 The committee reviewed the 654, 664, and 61 second drafts as balloted by each respective technical committee. They reviewed the responses to first correlating notes, the public comments that were rejected, negative comments from the second draft ballots, and the second revisions approved by the technical committees.

5.0 The committee created 14 second correlating revisions for 61, 3 second correlating revisions for 654 and one second correlating revision for 664.

6.0 In addition to second correlating revisions, the committee developed correlating committee input for the next revision cycle for all three A2016 documents as well as for 652, which is currently open for public input. These are summarized below.

NFPA 652: #1 - The Correlating Committee requests that the 652 TC change the implementation period for performing DHAs in Chapter 7 from 3 years to five years. This request is based on input from the other TCs (61, 664, and 654) that a five year period is more appropriate and realistic. In addition, the 652, 654, and 664 TCs should consider changing original cost to replacement cost (as in NFPA 61). In many cases, original cost data is not available. The other committees should also consider changing material to significant when describing change (again similar to 61) for consistency between the documents. #2 – Review that material in Annex 5.2.2 for consistency in the next revision cycle. It appears that the annex was not updated at second draft #3 - Review the definition of fire hazard (extracted into the other documents from NFPA 652) in light of the comments received on NFPA 654 regarding the term, “based on applicable data” used in the definition. #4 - Definition of Enclosureless AMS – Review SR -8 in 664 and the change from “medium” to “media”. Consider making the same change in the next revision of 652.

NFPA 61: #1 – Reconsider the definition of Ingredient Transport System and 8.3.3.2.4 regarding the requirements for ingredient transport systems. Consider narrowing the definition to limit the intent of this section to include only those ingredients that are transported to be used in the process. Consider a limit on the size or the capacity of the system. Consider limits on the physical properties of the ingredient being transferred.

#2 – Review the annex material for Management of Change (section 9.9) and consider moving the material into the main text of the chapter for correlation with 652. #3 - Consider moving the last sentence of the material in SR-47 to the main text as a requirement.

#4 - SR-45: Consider providing annex material for no. (7) to provide material as to how to determine if you have met this requirement. Consider a reference to the housekeeping requirements. NFPA 654 – #1 – The correlating committee wants to remind the 654 technical committee of the first revision correlating notes that they postponed to the next revision cycle (layout of the document to align with 652 and a review of Annex B and C. #2 – Section 9.3 on static electricity – The committee should review retroactivity requirements as they apply to this section. Review whether or not the material on RIBCs (9.3.5) and 9.3.6 and 9.3.7 be included. Review negative comment to SR-31 regarding Larry Britton’s comments. Review belt requirements in light of the changes that were made to 61 regarding the commercial availability of the material. NFPA 664 - #1 - Definition of Deflagrable Wood Dust – The NFPA 664 TC should reconsider the particle size criteria in this definition in light of the negative comments received on the ballot as well as the material presented at the first draft meeting. 664 is the only combustible dust standard with a moisture criteria and a particle size criteria. The correlating committee strongly recommends that the TC resolve these issues during the next revision cycle. If the TC intends to keep these criteria, they should provide quantitative technical data supporting the suitability of the criteria. #2 -SR-21 – The technical committee should review SR-21 in light of the negative comments received. Note that the 654 TC has established a task group to review similar public comments received on the issue of dust thickness with the goal of creating a TIA or material for the next revision cycle. #3 - SR-16 –The technical committee should review this SR and consider adding material to clarify requirements. The CC agrees that there are wood processes that operate at temperatures that exceed 360 F. There may need to be further details as to when and for what processes a higher temperature limit is appropriate. Review section 9.7 of 654 (2013) and the annex for an example regarding temperature limits. #4 – The technical committee should review annex material that refers to the old exemption language during the next revision cycle and update as appropriate. Also look at section 8.3.2 and determine an appropriate heading for the section.

NFPA 61, 654, and 664 –All three TCs should consider adding the provision in 1.4.4 of NFPA 652 regarding conflicts with 652. Note that this will need to be reworded to reflect the fact that the provision is in a commodity specific standard, not 652. All dust documents – All of the technical committees should review the change being made to NFPA 70 and NFPA 499 regarding combustible dusts.

7.0 Tim Myers, chair of the NFPA 61 technical committee, has submitted a public comment to the NEC on the definition of combustible dust. The correlating committee supports this public comment and will support a NITMAM if the public comment is rejected.

8.0 The next meeting of the Correlating Committee will be a conference call to review the second draft of 655, which is a F2016 document. Review of the first draft of the two dust documents in the A2018 revision cycle (652 and 484) will be scheduled for October/November 2016. Note that since 484 is now an A2018 document, there will not be a correlating committee meeting in January of 2016.

Address List No PhoneCombustible Dusts CMD-AAC

Susan Bershad10/24/2016

CMD-AAC

Kevin Kreitman

ChairAlbany Fire Department4105 Moose Run Drive SWAlbany, OR 97321-5160

E 10/18/2011CMD-AAC

Chris Aiken

PrincipalCargill, Inc.15407 McGinty Road West, MS 63Wayzata, MN 55391Alternate: Craig Froehling

U 07/29/2013

CMD-AAC

Matthew J. Bujewski

PrincipalMJB Risk Consulting9650 Mill Hill LaneSt. Louis, MO 63127

SE 03/07/2013CMD-AAC

John M. Cholin

PrincipalJ. M. Cholin Consultants Inc.101 Roosevelt DriveOakland, NJ 07436

SE 10/18/2011

CMD-AAC

Gregory F. Creswell

PrincipalCambridge-Lee Industries86 Tube DriveReading, PA 19605

M 04/05/2016CMD-AAC

Scott G. Davis

PrincipalGexCon US4833 Rugby Avenue, Suite 100Bethesda, MD 20814-3035

SE 03/07/2013

CMD-AAC

Henry L. Febo, Jr.

Principal41 Holly LaneHolliston, MA 01746Alternate: John A. LeBlanc

I 10/18/2011CMD-AAC

Walter L. Frank

PrincipalFrank Risk Solutions, Inc.1110 Shallcross AvenueWilmington, DE 19806

SE 10/23/2013

CMD-AAC

Robert C. Gombar

PrincipalBaker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc.707 Hardwood LaneAnnapolis, MD 21401-4570US Beet Sugar Association

U 04/08/2015CMD-AAC

Arthur P. Mattos, Jr.

PrincipalTUV SUD America Inc./Global Risk Consultants3216 Tatting RoadMatthews, NC 28105-7181

SE 03/03/2014

CMD-AAC

Steve McAlister

PrincipalMichelin North America1101 Westwood DrivePiedmont, SC 29673-7575

U 07/29/2013CMD-AAC

Jack E. Osborn

PrincipalAirdusco, Inc.4739 Mendenhall Road SouthMemphis, TN 38141-8202

M 10/18/2011

CMD-AAC

Bill Stevenson

PrincipalCV Technology, Inc.15852 Mercantile CourtJupiter, FL 33478Alternate: Jason Krbec

M 10/18/2011CMD-AAC

Jérôme R. Taveau

PrincipalFike Corporation704 SW 10th StreetBlue Springs, MO 64015-4263Alternate: Adam Morrison

M 07/29/2013

1

kcarey

Text Box

ATTACHMENT B

Address List No PhoneCombustible Dusts CMD-AAC

Susan Bershad10/24/2016

CMD-AAC

Craig Froehling

AlternateCargill, Inc.15407 McGinty Road West, MS 63Wayzata, MN 55391Principal: Chris Aiken

U 03/05/2012CMD-AAC

Jason Krbec

AlternateCV Technology, Inc.15852 Mercantile CourtJupiter, FL 33478Principal: Bill Stevenson

M 10/29/2012

CMD-AAC

John A. LeBlanc

AlternateFM Global1151 Boston-Providence TurnpikePO Box 9102Norwood, MA 02062-9102Principal: Henry L. Febo, Jr.

I 08/17/2015CMD-AAC

Adam Morrison

AlternateFike Corporation704 SW 10th StreetBlue Springs, MO 64015-4263Principal: Jérôme R. Taveau

M 03/03/2014

CMD-AAC

Mark W. Drake

Nonvoting MemberLiberty Mutual14125 West 139th StreetOlathe, KS 66062-5885TC on Combustible Metals and Metal Dusts

I 10/18/2011CMD-AAC

William R. Hamilton

Nonvoting MemberUS Department of LaborOccupational Safety & Health Administration200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room N3609Washington, DC 20210

E 10/18/2011

CMD-AAC

Paul F. Hart

Nonvoting MemberAmerican International Group, Inc. (AIG)18257 Martin AvenueHomewood, IL 60430-2107TC on Fundamentals of Combustible Dusts

I 08/09/2011CMD-AAC

Timothy J. Myers

Nonvoting MemberExponent, Inc.9 Strathmore RoadNatick, MA 01760-2418TC on Agricultural Dusts

SE 10/18/2011

CMD-AAC

Jason P. Reason

Nonvoting MemberLewellyn Technology2518 Thorium Drive, Apt 3Greenwood, IN 46143TC on Wood and Cellulosic Materials Processing

SE 10/18/2011CMD-AAC

Mark L. Runyon

Nonvoting MemberMarsh Risk Consulting111 SW Columbia, Suite 500Portland, OR 97201TC on Handling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, andGases

I 07/29/2013

CMD-AAC

Susan Bershad

Staff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

04/16/2014

2

Combustible Dusts Correlating Committee Review Guidelines

First Revision - Review of material Review of Public inputs which have been resolved with no First Revisions (3.4.3 g) Review of First Revisions which have negative votes (3.4.3 g) Review of First Revisions which may conflict within or between NFPA Standards (3.4.3 g) Review of First Revisions which may result in conflicts between overlapping functions in

TC Scopes (3.4.3 g) Review of Committee Inputs (3.4.3 g, h) Committee members inputs/questions not previously addressed (3.4.3 g) Review First Draft document layout for compliance with Manual of Style for NFPA

Technical Committee Documents, and if need for establishing supplemental operating procedures (3.4.3 f, g , h)

Are there any items the CC has identified that should result in a Correlating Input to provide guidance to the Technical Committees (4.3.3; 4.3.3.1)

Second Revision - Review of material Review of CC notes on First Revision (3.4.3 g) Review of Public Comments which are rejected (3.4.3 g) Review of Second Revisions which have negative votes (3.4.3 g) Review of Second Revisions which may conflict within or between NFPA Standards

(3.4.3 g) Review of Second Revisions which may result in conflicts between overlapping functions

in TC Scopes (3.4.3 g) Review of Second Revisions which have been identified by CC member (3.4.3 g) Review Second Draft document layout for compliance with Manual of Style for NFPA

Manual of Style, and review if need exists for establishing supplemental operating procedures (3.4.3 f, g, h)

Are there any items the CC has identified that should result in a Correlating Input to provide guidance to the Technical Committees (4.3.3; 4.3.3.1)

Is there a potential for a CC vote that would result in return of the document to the TC for further study versus forwarding the Standard to the NFPA Technical Meeting (4.4.11.5.2 b)

Following are the Scopes for Correlating Committee and Dust Committees

Combustible Dusts (CMD-AAC)

Committee Scope

This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the hazard identification, prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems used in manufacturing, processing, recycling, handling, conveying, or storing combustible particulate solids, combustible metals, or hybrid mixtures.

AGRICULTURAL DUSTS (CMD-AGR) 61

Committee Scope

This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fire and explosions resulting from dusts produced by the processing, handling, and storage of grain, starch, food, animal feed, flour, and other agricultural products. The Technical Committee shall also be responsible for requirements relating to the protection of life and property from fire and explosion hazards at agricultural and food products facilities.

Committee Responsibility

Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities (NFPA 61)

Document Scope 1.1 Scope. 1.1.1* This standard shall apply to all of the following: (1) All facilities that receive, handle, process, dry, blend, use, mill, package, store, or ship dry agricultural bulk materials, their by-products, or dusts that include grains, oilseeds, agricultural seeds, legumes, sugar, flour, spices, feeds, and other related materials. (2) All facilities designed for manufacturing and handling starch, including drying, grinding, conveying, processing, packaging, and storing dry or modified starch, and dry products and dusts generated from these processes. (3) Those seed preparation and meal-handling systems of oilseed processing plants not covered by NFPA 36, Standard for Solvent Extraction Plants. 1.1.2 This standard shall not apply to oilseed extraction plants that are covered by NFPA 36, Standard for Solvent Extraction Plants. A.1.1.1 Examples of facilities covered by this standard include, but are not limited to, bakeries, grain elevators, feed mills, flour mills, milling, corn milling (dry and wet), rice milling, dry milk products, mix plants, soybean and other oilseed preparation operations, cereal processing, snack food processing, tortilla plants, chocolate processing, pet food processing, cake mix processing, sugar refining and processing, and seed plants.

Handling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, and Gases (CMD-HAP) 91 Committee Scope This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems processing or conveying flammable or combustible dusts, gases, vapors, and mists.

Committee Responsibility Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 91) Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (NFPA 655) Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 654)

Document Scope (NFPA 91)

1.1.1 This standard provides minimum requirements for the design, construction, installation, operation, testing, and maintenance of exhaust systems for air conveying of vapors, gases, mists, and noncombustible particulate solids except as modified or amplified by other applicable NFPA standards. 1.1.2 This standard does not cover exhaust systems for conveying combustible particulate solids that are covered in other NFPA standards (see A.1.1).

COMBUSTIBLE METALS (CMD-CMM) 484

Committee Scope

This committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on safeguards against fire and explosion in the manufacturing, processing, handling, and storage of combustible metals, powders, and dusts.


Standard for Combustible Metals (NFPA 484)

Document Scope

1.1* Scope. This standard shall apply to the production, processing, finishing, handling, recycling, storage, and use of all metals and alloys that are in a form that is capable of combustion or explosion.

1.1.1 The procedures in Chapter 4 shall be used to determine whether a metal is in a noncombustible form.

1.1.2 Combustible Powder or Dust.

1.1.2.1 This standard also shall apply to operations where metal or metal alloys are subjected to processing or finishing operations that produce combustible powder or dust.

1.1.2.2 Operations where metal or metal alloys are subjected to processing or finishing operations that produce combustible powder or dust shall include, but shall not be limited to, machining, sawing, grinding, buffing, and polishing.

1.1.3* Metals, metal alloy parts, and those materials, including scrap, that exhibit combustion characteristics of aluminum, alkali metals, magnesium, tantalum, titanium, or zirconium shall be subject to the requirements of the metal whose combustion characteristics they most closely match.

1.1.4 Metals and metal alloy parts and those materials, including scrap, that do not exhibit combustion characteristics of alkali metals, aluminum, magnesium, niobium, tantalum, titanium, or zirconium are subject to the requirements of Chapter 10.

1.1.5* This standard shall not apply to the transportation of metals in any form on public highways and waterways or by air or rail.

1.1.6 This standard shall not apply to the primary production of aluminum, magnesium, and lithium.

1.1.7 This standard shall apply to laboratories that handle, use, or store more than 1/2 lb of alkali metals or 2 lb aggregate of other combustible metals, excluding alkali metals.

1.1.8 All alkali metals and metals that are in a form that is water reactive shall be subject to this standard.

1.1.9* If the quantity of a combustible metal listed in Table 1.1.9 is exceeded in an occupancy, the requirements of NFPA 484 shall apply.

STANDARD ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS (CMD-FUN) 652

Committee Scope

This Committee shall have primary responsibility for information and documents on the management of fire and explosion hazards from combustible dusts and particulate solids

Document Scope

This standard shall provide the basic principles of and requirements for identifying and managing the fire and explosion hazards of combustible dusts and particulate solids.

Committee Responsibility Standard on Combustible Dusts (NFPA 652)

PREVENTION OF FIRE AND DUST EXPLOSIONS FROM THE MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, AND HANDLING OF COMBUSTIBLE PARTICULATE SOLIDS (CMD- HAP) 654

Committee Scope

This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems processing or conveying flammable or combustible dusts, gases, vapors, and mists.

Committee Responsibility Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 91) Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (NFPA 655) Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 654)


1.1.1* This standard shall apply to all phases of the manufacture, processing, blending, pneumatic conveying, repackaging, and handling of combustible particulate solids or hybrid mixtures, regardless of concentration or particle size, where the materials present a fire or explosion hazard. 1.1.2 This standard shall apply to systems that convey combustible particulate solids that are produced as a result of a principal or incidental activity, regardless of concentration or particle size, where the materials present a fire or explosion hazard. 1.1.3 This standard shall not apply to materials covered by the following documents, unless specifically referenced by the applicable document: (1) NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol Products (2) NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Products Facilities (3) NFPA 120, Standard for Coal Preparation Plants (4) NFPA 432, Code for the Storage of Organic Peroxide Formulations (5) NFPA 480, Standard for the Storage, Handling, and Processing of Magnesium Solids and Powders (6) NFPA 481, Standard for the Production, Processing, Handling, and Storage of Titanium (7) NFPA 482, Standard for the Production, Processing, Handling, and Storage of Zirconium (8) NFPA 485, Standard for the Storage, Handling, Processing, and Use of Lithium Metal (9) NFPA 495, Explosive Materials Code (10) NFPA 651, Standard for the Machining and Finishing of Aluminum and the Production and Handling of Aluminum Powders (11) NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (12) NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities (13) NFPA 1124, Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, and Storage of Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (14) NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors (15) NFPA 8503, Standard for Pulverized Fuel Systems 1.1.4 In the event of a conflict between this standard and a specific occupancy standard, the specific occupancy standard requirements shall apply.

PREVENTION OF SULFUR FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS (CMD-HAP) 655

Committee Scope

This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems processing or conveying flammable or combustible dusts, gases, vapors, and mists.


Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 91) Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (NFPA 655) Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 654)


1.1 Scope. 1.1.1* This standard shall apply to the crushing, grinding, or pulverizing of sulfur and to the handling of sulfur in any form. 1.1.2 This standard shall not apply to the mining of sulfur, recovery of sulfur from process streams, or transportation of sulfur.

PREVENTION OF FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS IN WOOD PROCESSING AND WOODWORKING FACILITIES (CMD-WOO) 664

Committee Scope

This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in wood processing, wood working facilities and facilities that use other cellulosic materials as a substitute or additive for wood.


Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities (NFPA 664)

Document Scope

1.1 Scope. This standard shall establish the minimum requirements for fire and explosion prevention and protection of industrial, commercial, or institutional facilities that process wood or manufacture wood products, using wood or other cellulosic fiber as a substitute for or additive to wood fiber, and that process wood, creating wood chips, particles, or dust.

1.1.1 Woodworking and wood processing facilities shall include, but are not limited to, wood flour plants, industrial woodworking plants, furniture plants, plywood plants, composite board plants, lumber mills, and production-type woodworking shops and carpentry shops that are incidental to facilities that would not otherwise fall within the purview of this standard. 1.1.2* This standard shall apply to woodworking operations that occupy areas of more than 465 m2 (5000 ft2) or where dust-producing equipment requires an aggregate dust collection flow rate of more than 2549 m3/hr (1500 ft3/min).

Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards – Fall 2013 and all subsequent revision cycles (excerpts pertaining to Correlating Committee and First Draft Actions)

4.3.11 Correlating Committee Review and Action on Public Input and the First Draft.

4.3.11.1 Review and Permitted Activity. Where Technical Committee activities are managed and

coordinated by a Correlating Committee, the Correlating Committee shall review the First Draft as Balloted

by the Technical Committees under its responsibility and take appropriate action within the limits of its

authority and responsibility as set forth in 3.4.2 and 3.4.3, in the form of Correlating Notes and Correlating

Revisions.

4.3.11.2 Correlating Notes. In reviewing the First Draft, Correlating Committee action shall generally take

the form of Correlating Notes that provide clarification and other appropriate information or that direct the

responsible Technical Committee(s) to reconsider Public Input, Committee Input, or Correlating Input,

conduct further review, or take further action during the preparation of the Second Draft.

4.3.11.2.1 Correlating Notes that pass Ballot shall be published in the First Draft Report and shall be linked

to the part of the First Draft to which it relates. Correlating Notes shall be processed in accordance with

4.4.7 during the Comment Stage. Correlating Notes shall be supported by at least a simple majority of the

Meeting Vote for preliminary approval and shall be subject to final approval through a Ballot (see 4.3.11.3).

4.3.11.3 Correlating Revisions. Where early action to promote correlation and consistency of the NFPA

Standard is warranted, the Correlating Committee may also revise the First Draft by creating First

Correlating Revisions, with associated Correlating Statements that delete or modify First Revisions or other

text in the First Draft. To the extent that a First Correlating Revision modifies or deletes a First Revision or

any portion of the First Revision, the original text of the First Revision, or affected portion thereof, shall be

redesignated as a Committee Input and shall be published in the Input section of the First Draft Report

along with a note indicating that the text contained in the Committee Input has been modified or deleted

from the First Draft as a result of First Correlating Revision.

4.3.11.3.1 Size and Content of First Correlating Revisions.

(a) An individual Correlating Revision can contain multiple changes to the Standard text, provided that these

changes are contained within a contiguous portion of the Standard that is no smaller than an individual

numbered or lettered section or larger than a chapter.

(b) Exception for Global Revisions. Where the Correlating Committee wishes to revise a term or phrase

throughout an NFPA Standard so as to achieve editorial consistency or correlation, the Committee may do

so through a single Global Revision that applies the change throughout the NFPA Standard.

4.3.11.3.2 First Correlating Revisions shall be supported by at least a simple majority of the Meeting Vote

for preliminary approval and shall be subject to final approval through a Ballot (see 4.3.11.3).

4.3.11.4 Preparation of First Draft for Balloting.

4.3.11.4.1 When the Correlating Committee has completed its work, NFPA Staff shall prepare the complete

First Draft showing individual First Correlating Revisions and their associated Committee Statements for

Balloting.

4.3.11.4.2 Prior to the Ballot, the First Draft and individual First Correlating Revisions shall be reviewed by

NFPA Staff for editorial consistency and conformance with the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical

Committee Documents and any required editorial changes shall be incorporated into the text of the First

Draft and individual First Correlating Revisions prior to Balloting.

4.3.11.4.3 If, in the course of editorial review, NFPA Staff make an editorial change to text that is not part

of a First Correlating Revision, Staff may, if Correlating Committee review is deemed advisable, designate

the affected text as a First Correlating Revision. A notice shall be attached to such a Revision indicating

that it was developed by Staff for editorial purposes.

4.3.11.5 Correlating Committee Ballot on First Draft.

4.3.11.5.1 Balloting on Correlating Notes.

(a) Any proposed Correlating Notes on the First Draft shall be submitted to a Ballot of the Correlating

Committee. Approval of Correlating Notes shall be established by a three-fourths affirmative vote of the

Correlating Committee. Negative votes or abstentions on specific Correlating Notes shall include the

reasons for such votes.

(b) Only proposed Correlating Notes that are approved by the Correlating Committee Ballot shall become

Correlating Notes and be published in the First Draft Report. Correlating Notes that fail Ballot shall not be

published.

(c) For approved Correlating Notes, a ballot statement as indicated in 3.3.4.3(d) shall be published with its

associated Correlating Notes in the First Draft Report.

4.3.11.5.2 Balloting on First Correlating Revisions.

(a) Any proposed First Correlating Revisions taken on the First Draft shall be submitted to a Ballot of the

Correlating Committee. Approval of First Correlating Revisions shall be established by a three-fourths

affirmative vote of the Correlating Committee. Negative votes or abstentions on specific First Correlating

Revisions shall include the reasons for such votes.

(b) Only proposed First Correlating Revisions that are approved by the Correlating Committee Ballot shall

become First Correlating Revisions and be published in the First Draft Report. First Correlating Revisions

that fail Ballot shall not be published.

(c) For approved First Correlating Revisions, a ballot statement as indicated in 3.3.4.3(d) shall be published

with their associated First Correlating Revisions in the First Draft Report.

(d) Treatment of Global Revisions. Global Revisions are balloted in the same manner as other Revisions,

and a Global Revision that passes Ballot is applied, as directed, throughout the Standard, independently of

the results of balloting on other Revisions.

4.3.12 Publication of Public Input and First Draft. Technical Committee Reports shall be published as

follows:

(a) Form and Content of First Draft Report. At the conclusion of Ballot of the First Draft, a First Draft

Report shall be created in a form suitable for online publication that contains all content designated for

publication within these Regulations.

(b) Where the Technical Committee’s activities are managed and coordinated by a Correlating Committee

and where the Correlating Committee has no Correlating Notes or First Correlating Revisions, a note shall

be placed in the First Draft Report indicating the Correlating Committee reviewed the First Draft and did not

add any Correlating Notes or First Correlating Revisions.

Public Input No. 25-NFPA 652-2016 [ Global Input ]

This standard was approved on September 7, 2015, less than one year ago. We believe this standard as writtengenerally provides useful procedures for evaluating the combustibility and explosibility of a dust, and woulddiscourage any substantive changes to the existing language at this time.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Our Statement is not a problem - we are encouraging continuation of the standard as it is written without substantive changes.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Kelley Green

Organization: Texas Cotton Ginners' Association

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Jun 22 10:22:40 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Resolution: The technical committee appreciates the support of the submitter. Since the public input does not recommend any specific textchanges, it is not actionable by the committee.

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

1 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 9-NFPA 652-2016 [ Global Input ]

When referring to the housekeeping of dust-layers that have accumulated on surfaces, replace all references to"cleaning surfaces" with "removal of dust from surfaces".


The use of "cleaning" does not clearly identify that the dust-layer on a surface should not just be dispersed into the air to settle and accumulate elsewhere within the local area.


Submitter Full Name: Joe Aiken

Organization: Safety Solutions Ltd.

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed May 04 19:46:39 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Resolution: This issue is addressed by Section 8.4.1.2, which states, " the methods used for cleaning surfaces shall be selected based onthe basis of reducing the potential for creating a combustible dust cloud." See FR -1, which added additional annex material toA.8.4.1.2 to address the concerns of the submitter.


2 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 29-NFPA 652-2016 [ New Section after 1.3.3 ]

A.1.3.3(4)

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


The term "warehousing" in Section 1.3.3(4) is somewhat confusing and is not clear when storage areas are or are not covered under NFPA 652. Thus, annex material is needed to further explain the committee's intent of which facilities or areas of the facility are not covered under the scope and application of NFPA 652.


Submitter Full Name: Jason Reason

Organization: Lewellyn Technology

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Jun 24 18:49:15 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-6. Material was added as annex to 1.3.3 (4)


3 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 62-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. 1.4.1 ]

1.4.1*

For the purposes of this standard, the industry- or commodity-specific NFPA standards shall include the following:

(1) NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities

(2) NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals

(3) NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling ofCombustible Particulate Solids

(4) NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfure Sulfur Fires and Explosions

(5) NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities


Fixing typographical error.


Submitter Full Name: Timothy Myers

Organization: Exponent Inc

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: FR-2-NFPA 652-2016

Statement: Fixing typographical error.


4 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


2.3.2 ASTM Publications.

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2012a.

ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, 2007 2014 .


Date updates.


Submitter Full Name: Timothy Earl

Organization: GBH International

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Jan 05 10:02:43 EST 2016

Committee Statement


Statement: Date updates.


5 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 63-NFPA 652-2016 [ New Section after 3.1 ]

Explosible Definition

3.3.X Explosible. A finely-divided combustible particulate solid that can propagate a deflagration when dispersed in air or the process-specific oxidizing media as determined in the screening tests described in Section 5.4.3


The term explosible is used in this and other NFPA combustible dust standards and a uniform definition should be developed.

NFPA 68 includes an alternative definition and another definition is being proposed by the NFPA 484 technical committee.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: The term explosible is used in this and other NFPA combustible dust standards and a uniform definition should be developed.The annex refers to NFPA 68.


6 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


Extracted from section 3.3.29 of NFPA 61

3.3.X Point-of-Use Dust Collector. A bin vent–type of dust

collector with an integral AMD used to create negative pressure

on enclosed conveying equipment.


Point of use dust collectors are seeing increased use in a variety of industries. This definition is complimentary to the proposed section on these collectors.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship

Public Input No. 66-NFPA 652-2016 [New Section after 8.3.5.3] The defined term is used in this requirement.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: Based on the committees action on the related PI, PI-66, this definition is not needed as it is not used in the standard.


7 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


3.3.x Material modification.

A modification that changes the original design of the equipment or process, or that changes the explosibility properties of thecontents of the equipment.


Section 7.1.2.1 of the standard is unclear as to what constitutes a material modification. This definition will add clarity.


Submitter Full Name: Marie Gargas

Organization: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association

Affilliation: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Jun 27 11:04:01 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Resolution: Section 7.1 has been revised. The term "material modification" is no longer used and therefore, a definition is not needed.


8 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 28-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. 4.2 ]

4.

2 Objectives2 Objectives .

4.2.1

Life Safety. The design of the facility, processes and equipment shall be based upon the goal of providing a reasonable level of safetyand property protection by meeting the following objectives:

(1) Life safety

(2) Mission continuity

(3) Mitigation of fire spread and explosions

4.2.1.1

*

The facility, processes, and equipment shall be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall beimplemented to reasonably protect occupants not in the immediate proximity of the ignition from the effects of fire for the time neededto evacuate, relocate, or take refuge.

The objectives stated in Section 4.2 shall be interpreted as intended outcomes of this standard and not as prescriptiverequirements.

4.2.1.2 The objectives stated in Section 4.2 shall be deemed to be met when, consistent with the goal in Section 4.2.1

.2 Theand the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the following has been achieved:

(1) T he facility, processes

,and equipment

shall beare designed, constructed

, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to reasonably prevent serious injury from flash firesand maintained in accordance with the prescriptive criteria set forth in this standard.

(2) The management systems set forth in this standard are implemented .

4.2.1.3

The facility, processes, and equipment shall be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall beimplemented to reasonably prevent injury from explosions

Where a performance-based alternative design is used, it shall be documented to meet the same objectives as theprescriptive design it replaces, in accordance with Chapter 6 of this standard .

4.2.

1.4 The structure shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to reasonably protect adjacent properties and the publicfrom the effects of fire, flash fire, or explosion

2 Life Safety. The life safety objective shall be deemed to have been met when, consistent with the goal in Section 4.2.1and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the occupants not in the immediate proximity of the ignition are protected from theeffects of fires, flash-fires, and explosions for the time needed to evacuate, relocate, or take refuge in order to prevent seriousinjury .

4.2.

23 *

Mission Mission Continuity.

The facility, processes, and equipment shall be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall beimplemented to

The mission continuity objective shall be deemed to have been met when, consistent with the goal in Section 4.2.1 and theprovisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the protection features for the facility, processes and equipment limit damage to levels thatensure the ongoing mission, production, or operating capability of the facility to a degree acceptable to the owner/operator.

A. 4.2.

3 * Mitigation3 Other stakeholders could also have mission continuity goals that will necessitate more stringent objectives as well asmore specific and demanding performance criteria. The protection of property beyond maintaining structural integrity longenough to escape is actually a mission continuity objective.


9 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

The mission continuity objective encompasses the survival of both real property, such as the building, and theproduction equipment and inventory beyond the extinguishment of the fire. Traditionally, property protection objectives haveaddressed the impact of the fire on structural elements of a building as well as the equipment and contents inside a building.Mission continuity is concerned with the ability of a structure to perform its intended functions and with how that affects thestructure's tenants. It often addresses post-fire smoke contamination, cleanup, and replacement of damaged equipment orraw materials.

4.2.4* Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosions.

The facility and processes The mitigation of fire spread and explosions shall be

designed todeemed to have been met when, consistent with the goal in Section 4.2.1 and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, theprescribed or performance based alternative design features are incorporated into the facility and processes to prevent ormitigate fires and explosions that can cause failure of adjacent buildings or building compartments , or other enclosures,emergency life safety systems, adjacent properties, adjacent storage, or the

facility’sfacility's structural elements.

A. 4.2.4

* Compliance Options. The objectives in Section Adjacent compartments share a common enclosure surface (wall, ceiling, floor) with the compartment of fire or explosionorigin. The intent is to prevent the collapse of the structure during the fire or explosion.

4.2.5* Compliance Options. The objectives in Section 4.2 shall be achieved by either of the following means:

(1) A prescriptive approach in accordance with Chapters 5, 7, 8, and 9 in conjunction with any prescriptiveprovisions of applicable commodity-specific NFPA standards .

(2) A performance-based approach in accordance with

Chapter 6Chapter 6.

A. 4.2.

5 5 Usually a facility or process system is designed using the prescriptive criteria until a prescribed solution is found to beinfeasible or impracticable. Then the designer can use the performance-based option to develop a design, addressing the fullrange of fire and explosion scenarios and the impact on other prescribed design features. Consequently, facilities are usuallydesigned not by using performance-based design methods for all facets of the facility but rather by using a mixture of bothdesign approaches as needed.

4.2.6 Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a process system, the hazards shall be managed inaccordance with this standard.

4.2.

6 7 Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a

building or buildingfacility compartment, the effects of the fire, deflagration, or explosion shall be managed in accordance with this standard.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved

USBSA_4.2_changes.docx Attached word file of the complete public input to assist.


This revision would implement a decision by the Correlating Committee on Combustible Dusts. In November 2014, the Correlating Committee set up an Objectives Task Group to examine aligning the Objectives provisions for all of the combustible dust standards. The Objectives Task Group had members representing the following NFPA combustible dust standards: 61, 484, 652, 654, and 664. In January 2015, the Correlating Committee reviewed the work product of the Objectives Task Group and created a Correlating Committee Note containing a document with the Objectives language developed by the Objectives Task Group. The Objectives language being recommended in this public comment is the language developed by the Objectives Task Group, and is being submitted solely to implement the intent of the Correlating Committee and the work of its Task Group.


Submitter Full Name: Arthur Sapper

Organization: McDermott Will Emery Llp

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


10 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


Committee Statement

Resolution: The technical committee believes that the proposed language was repetitive (e.g. 4.2.5 compliance options and 4.2.1.1). Webelieve that it basically recast our objectives and introduced a statement that objectives were not prescriptive requirements. Thetechnical committee revised 4.2.4 to address the issue of users misinterpreting the objectives section as a prescriptiverequirements. The objectives as stated in the current edition of 652 are organized to reflect the hazards that we seek to manage,i.e., fire, flash fire, and explosion. This organization would be lost in the proposed revision.


11 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Comment No. ___-NFPA 652-2016 [Section 4.2]

4.2 Objectives.

4.2.1 Life Safety.

4.2.1.1* The facility, processes and equipment, shall be designed, constructed, equipped,

and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to reasonably protect

occupants not in the immediate proximity of the ignition from the effects of fire for the

time needed to evacuate, relocate, or take refuge.

4.2.1.2 The facility, processes and equipment shall be designed, constructed, equipped,

and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to reasonably prevent

serious injury from flash fires.

4.2.1.3 The facility, processes and equipment shall be designed, constructed, equipped,

and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to reasonably prevent

serious injury from explosions.

4.2.1.4 The structure shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to

reasonably protect adjacent properties and the public from the effects of fire, flash fire, or

explosion.

4.2.2* Mission Continuity. The facility, processes and equipment shall be designed,

constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to

limit damage to levels that ensure the ongoing mission, production, or operating

capability of the facility to a degree acceptable to the owner/operator.

4.2.3* Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosions. The facility and processes shall be

designed to prevent or mitigate fires and explosions that can cause failure of adjacent

buildings or building compartments or other enclosures, emergency life safety systems,

adjacent properties, adjacent storage, or the facility's structural elements.

4.2.4* Compliance Options. The objectives in Section 4.2 shall be achieved by either

of the following means:

(1) A prescriptive approach in accordance with Chapters 5, 7, 8, and 9 in conjunction

with any prescriptive provisions of applicable commodity-specific NFPA standards.

(2) A performance-based approach in accordance with Chapter 6.

4.2.5 Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a process system,

the hazards shall be managed in accordance with this standard.

4.2.6 Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a building or

building compartment, the effects of the fire, deflagration, or explosion shall be managed

in accordance with this standard.

4.2 Objectives.

4.2.1 The design of the facility, processes and equipment shall be based upon the goal

of providing a reasonable level of safety and property protection by meeting the

following objectives:

(1) Life safety

(2) Mission continuity

(3) Mitigation of fire spread and explosions

4.2.1.1 The objectives stated in Section 4.2 shall be interpreted as intended outcomes of

this standard and not as prescriptive requirements.

4.2.1.2 The objectives stated in Section 4.2 shall be deemed to be met when, consistent

with the goal in Section 4.2.1 and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the following

has been achieved:

(1) The facility, processes and equipment are designed, constructed and maintained in

accordance with the prescriptive criteria set forth in this standard.

(2) The management systems set forth in this standard are implemented.

4.2.1.3 Where a performance-based alternative design is used, it shall be documented to

meet the same objectives as the prescriptive design it replaces, in accordance with

Chapter 6 of this standard.

4.2.2 Life Safety. The life safety objective shall be deemed to have been met when,

consistent with the goal in Section 4.2.1 and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the

occupants not in the immediate proximity of the ignition are protected from the effects of

fires, flash-fires, and explosions for the time needed to evacuate, relocate, or take refuge

in order to prevent serious injury.

4.2.3* Mission Continuity. The mission continuity objective shall be deemed to have

been met when, consistent with the goal in Section 4.2.1 and the provisions in Sections

1.4 and 1.5, the protection features for the facility, processes and equipment limit damage

to levels that ensure the ongoing mission, production, or operating capability of the

facility to a degree acceptable to the owner/operator.

A.4.2.3 Other stakeholders could also have mission continuity goals that will necessitate

more stringent objectives as well as more specific and demanding performance criteria.

The protection of property beyond maintaining structural integrity long enough to escape

is actually a mission continuity objective.

The mission continuity objective encompasses the survival of both real property,

such as the building, and the production equipment and inventory beyond the

extinguishment of the fire. Traditionally, property protection objectives have addressed

the impact of the fire on structural elements of a building as well as the equipment and

contents inside a building. Mission continuity is concerned with the ability of a structure

to perform its intended functions and with how that affects the structure's tenants. It often

addresses post-fire smoke contamination, cleanup, and replacement of damaged

equipment or raw materials.

4.2.4* Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosions. The mitigation of fire spread and

explosions shall be deemed to have been met when, consistent with the goal in Section

4.2.1 and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the prescribed or performance based

alternative design features are incorporated into the facility and processes to prevent or

mitigate fires and explosions that can cause failure of adjacent buildings or building

compartments, or other enclosures, emergency life safety systems, adjacent properties,

adjacent storage, or the facility's structural elements.

A.4.2.4 Adjacent compartments share a common enclosure surface (wall, ceiling, floor)

with the compartment of fire or explosion origin. The intent is to prevent the collapse of

the structure during the fire or explosion.

4.2.5* Compliance Options. The objectives in Section 4.2 shall be achieved by either of

the following means:

(1) A prescriptive approach in accordance with Chapters 5, 7, 8, and 9 in

conjunction with any prescriptive provisions of applicable commodity-specific NFPA

standards.

(2) A performance-based approach in accordance with Chapter 6.

A.4.2.5 Usually a facility or process system is designed using the prescriptive criteria

until a prescribed solution is found to be infeasible or impracticable. Then the designer

can use the performance-based option to develop a design, addressing the full range of

fire and explosion scenarios and the impact on other prescribed design features.

Consequently, facilities are usually designed not by using performance-based design

methods for all facets of the facility but rather by using a mixture of both design

approaches as needed.

4.2.6 Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a process system,

the hazards shall be managed in accordance with this standard.

4.2.7 Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a facility

compartment, the effects of the fire, deflagration, or explosion shall be managed in

accordance with this standard.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

This revision would implement a decision by the Correlating Committee on Combustible

Dusts. In November 2014, the Correlating Committee set up an Objectives Task Group

to examine aligning the Objectives provisions for all of the combustible dust standards.

The Objectives Task Group had members representing the following NFPA combustible

dust standards: 61, 484, 652, 654, and 664. In January 2015, the Correlating Committee

reviewed the work product of the Objectives Task Group and created a Correlating

Committee Note containing a document with the Objectives language developed by the

Objectives Task Group. The Objectives language being recommended in this public

comment is the language developed by the Objectives Task Group, and is being

submitted solely to implement the intent of the Correlating Committee and the work of its

Task Group.


Submitter Full Name: ARTHUR SAPPER

Organization: for the United States Beet Sugar Association

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date:


5.2.1

The determination of combustibility or explosibility shall be permitted to be based upon either of the following:

(1) Historical facility data or published data that are deemed to be representative of current materials and process conditions

(2) Analysis of representative samples in accordance with the requirements of 5.4.1 and 5.4.3

This section is very important for industries with dusts that are essentially identical, and should be maintained as written.


There is no problem with this section - we are supporting the section as written.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement



12 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 22-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. 5.4.1.1 ]

5.4.1.1

Where the combustibility is not known, determination of combustibility shall be determined by one of the following tests:

(1) A screening test based on the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations — Manual ofTests and Criteria, Part III, Subsection 33.2.1, Test N.1, “Test Method for Readily Combustible Solids”

(2) Other equivalent fire exposure test methods


There is no problem with this section - we are supporting the section as written.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement



13 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


5.4.3.1

Where the explosibility is not known, determination of explosibility of dusts shall be determined according to one of the followingtests:

(1) The “Go/No-Go” screening test methodology described in ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds

(2) ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts

(3) An equivalent test methodology


This section should be maintained as written. It provides important information for determination of explosbility. The issue of over-driven results when the 20 L sphere is used is further discussed in published peer reviewed papers by B. Ganesan et al and AnnMarie Fauske. (Ganesan, B., Parnell Jr., C. B., McGee, R. O., & Faulkner, W.B (2015); A critical evaluation of explosible dust testing methods: Part II. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Vol 31(2) 203-209. http://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=45458&t=1&redir=aid=45458&confalias=&redir=[volume=31&issue=2&conf=aeaj&orgconf=aeaj2015]&redirType=toc_journals.asp&redirType=toc_journals.asp), and (Fauske, A (2014) Combustible Dust Basics, Part 3: What is Overdriving? http://blog.fauske.com/blog/bid/381834/Combustible-Dust-Basics-Part-3-What-is-Overdriving).




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement



14 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


Sample preservation

5.X.X Samples that may oxidize or degrade in the presence of air shall be maintained in suitable inert gas or vacuum packaging untiltested.


Some materials can oxidize or degrade in air changing their combustibility or explosibility characteristics and should be appropriately preserved between sampling and testing.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: Some materials can oxidize or degrade in air changing their combustibility or explosibility characteristics and should beappropriately preserved between sampling and testing.


15 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


7.1.2 (new 7.1. 2 * and move existing 7.1.2, etc., accordingly)

A DHA shall be completed for all new processes and facility compartments.

7.1.3*

The requirements of Chapter 7 shall apply retroactively in accordance with 7.1.2.1 through 7.1.2.3.

7.1.2 3 .1

For existing processes and facility compartments that are undergoing material modification, the owner/operator shall complete DHAsas part of the project.

7.1.2 3 .2*

For existing processes and facility compartments that are not undergoing material modification, the owner/operator shall schedule andcomplete DHAs of existing processes and facility compartments within a 3-year period from the effective date of the standard. Theowner/operator shall demonstrate reasonable progress in each of the 3 years.

7.1.2 3 .3

For the purposes of applying the provisions of 7.1.2, material modification shall include modifications or maintenance and repairactivities that exceed 25 percent of the original cost.


Although the requirement for a DHA for new processes and facility compartments are "implied" by 5.1 and 5.1.1, it is not specifically required in chapter 7. Such a requirement should not be implied but specifically stated to assure there is no doubt as to the necessity of the DHA for new processes, etc.


Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn

Organization: Airdusco, Inc.

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 07:45:44 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-38 for the revision to Section 7.1 and the substantiation.


16 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 58-NFPA 652-2016 [ New Section after 7.1.2.3 ]

7.1.2.4. The absence of previous incidents shall not be used as the basis for not performing a DHA.


This requirement is needed because all too often facilities will incorrectly use the fact that no incidents have occurred as basis for not assessing and mitigating potential combustible dust hazards. These facilities have no idea what hazards are present at their facilities and incorrectly use the lack of an incident as justification for not performing a DHA. This requirement clarifies the need to perform a DHA, regardless of whether incidents have occurred or not, at each facility covered under NFPA 652.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement



17 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


7.1.2.3

For the purposes of applying the provisions of 7.1.2, material modification shall include modifications or maintenance and repairactivities that exceed 25 percent of the original replacement cost.


The original cost of a system and/or equipment 20 or more years old can be a very small fraction of the actual present costs (in comparison). Thus, small changes in a system can result in a requirement for a DHA. Such small changes (e.g. duct changes in a dust collection system, or changes in the discharge of the collected material in the dust collector) are adequately covered by Management of Change requirements. A full DHA should be required for significant changes only and the use of the 25% of replacement cost is more representative of that type of change.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement



18 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


7.2.4 Review.

The DHA shall be reviewed and updated at least every 5 years.


The DHA should always be reviewed at a predetermined interval to ensure that the hazard assessment and mitigation techniques used during the DHA are still correct and valid. Both NFPA 654 and NFPA 484 both have this 5 year review requirement for DHAs (hazard analyses).




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement



19 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


X.X.Y Where practical, facilities shall consider alternative processes or raw materials that reduce the need to handle combustibledusts.


Inherent safety is currently designated as a reserved section. The technical committee should begin to describe the concepts of inherent safety either through prescriptive requirements or annex material.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-39. PI was made to the wrong station. FR is a change in the title of the section. The TC also added annex material. Atask group was created to develop additional annex material for the second draft.


20 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


Insert new 8.3.3.3.5 and renumber following sections

8.3.3.3.5* It shall be permitted to use an engineered system managed by a control system together with a variable frequency drive-operated fan. The control system ensures maintaining minimum design air volume flow in main ducts and open branch ducts at alloperating conditions.

A.8.3.3.3.5 In a single main system with multiple drops the main duct is optimized based on the maximum and average workstationutilization to allow system to be operated from minimum air volume flow up to the maximum air volume flow. The control systemmaintains the minimum design air volume flow in the main duct and open branch ducts.

In a system with sub-main ducts the control system must measure air volume flow at hood (or drops), at branches and sub-branchesand automatically adjust minimum design air volume flow in each branch. The controller must ensure that minimum air volume flow ismaintained at each open branch and sub-branch and that minimum design air volume flow is maintained at all open hoods or pickup


Energy requirement for dust systems are significant and often the single largest power consumer in a facility. Multiple tests has shown that the actual demand for vacuum is often in the 20 to 30% of full open design flows. With new technology it is now possible via a control system to manage where vacuum is needed and at the same time assure that minimum design velocities are maintained to prevent accumulation of dust in the ducting and also maintain minimum design flows at each drop.


Submitter Full Name: Niels Pedersen

Organization: Nederman LLC

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-40


21 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 652-2016 [ New Section after 8.3.4.1.1.2 ]

8.3.4.1.1.3 Rotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all ofthe following criteria are met:

(1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud with the air-material separator enclosure housingthe drum filter;

(2) The drum filter has sprinkler protection; and

(3) AMS downstream from the rotary drum filter shall be protected in accordance with Section 8.8.



PublicCommentNo91.pdf NFPA 652 Public Comment No. 91


NOTE: The following Public Input appeared as "Reject but Hold" in Public Comment No. 91 of the A2015 Second Draft Report for NFPA 652 and per the Regs. at 4.4.8.3.1.

Substantiation :Rotary drum filters have long been used in the textile and cellulosic industries, and have proven to be inherently safe from deflagration. The rotating media drum's filter media contains only a minimal amount of dust at any time during use which is never suspended in air-in contrast to baghouse operation. It is only vacuumed off a felt on the rotating drum with vacuum nozzles similar to home vacuum cleaner nozzles and conveyed to a secondary (conventional) AMS (e.g., cyclone) which should be protected in accordance with this standard. As it is written, it appears that this document would disallow interior rotary drum filters by taking away the qualifying requirement of "where an explosion hazard exists" arbitrarily requiring protection on equipment that (i) does not require protection and (ii) is impossible to protect with chemical suppression or relief venting.


Submitter Full Name: TC ON CMD-FUN

Organization: NFPA TC ON FUNDAMENTALS OF COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Jan 04 14:22:59 EST 2016

Committee Statement

Resolution: This material was held from the last revision cycle and resubmitted this cycle as a new Public Input. The committee is not familiarenough with these devices and needs more information on the equipment. This was requested as a response to the publiccomment submitted at the last revision cycle but was not provided as part of the public input received this cycle. The committeerequests that the submitter provide technical information to substantiate their request so that they can consider the addition of thetext.


22 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.3.4.1.1.3 Rotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all ofthe following criteria are met.

(1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator enclosure housingthe drum filter;


(3) AMS downstream from the torary drum filter shall be protected in accordance with Section 8.8.



PublicCommentNo400.pdf NFPA 652 Public Comment No. 400



Rotary drum filters have long been used in the textile and cellulosic industries, and have proven to be inherently safe from deflagration. The rotating media drum’s filter media contains only a minimal amount of dust at any time during use which is never suspended in air – in contrast to baghouse operation. It is only vacuumed off a felt on the rotating drum with vacuum nozzles similar to home vacuum cleaner nozzles and conveyed to a secondary (conventional) AMS (e.g., cyclone) which should be protected in accordance with this standard. As it is written, it appears that this document would disallow interior rotary drum filters by taking away the qualifying requirement of “where an explosion hazard exists” arbitrarily requiring protection on equipment that (i) does not require protection and (ii) is impossible to protect with chemical suppression or relief venting.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement



23 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Comment No. 400-NFPA 652-2013 [ New Section after

8.3.4.1.1.2 ]

8.3.4.1.1.3, New textRotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all of the following criteria are met:

(1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator enclosure housing the drum filter;






Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO

Organization: SPI

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Nov 15 09:40:05 EST 2013

Committee Statement

Page500 of 898National Fire Protection Association Report

9/8/2014http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentParams=%28Comment...


8.3.4.1.1.2.1 Rotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all ofthe following criteria are met:

(1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator enclosurehousing the drum filter;





PublicCommentNo219.pdf NFPA 652 Public Comment 219



Rotary drum filters have long been used in the textile and cellulosic industries, and have proven to be inherently safe from deflagration. The rotating media drum’s filter media contains only a minimal amount of dust at any time during use which is never suspended in air – in contrast to baghouse operation. It is only vacuumed off a felt on the rotating drum with vacuum nozzles similar to home vacuum cleaner nozzles and conveyed to asecondary (conventional) AMS (e.g., cyclone) which should be protected in accordance with this standard. As it is written, it appears that this document would disallow interior rotary drum filters by taking away the qualifying requirement of “where an explosion hazard exists” arbitrarily requiring protection on equipment that (i) does not require protection and (ii) is impossible to protect with chemical suppression or relief venting.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement



24 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Comment No. 219-NFPA 652-2013 [ New Section after

8.3.4.1.1.2 ]

8.3.4.1.1.3, New textComment: Insert the following new section:

8.3.4.1.1.3 Rotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all of the following criteria are met:

(1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator enclosure housing the drum filter;




Substantiation : Rotary drum filters have long been used in the textile and cellulosic industries, and have proven to be inherently safe from deflagration. The rotating media drum’s filter media contains only a minimal amount of dust at any time during use which is never suspended in air – in contrast to baghouse operation. It is only vacuumed off a felt on the rotating drum with vacuum nozzles similar to home vacuum cleaner nozzles and conveyed to a secondary (conventional) AMS (e.g., cyclone) which should be protected in accordance with this standard. As it is written, it appears that this document would disallow interior rotary drum filters by taking away the qualifying requirement of “where an explosion hazard exists” arbitrarily requiring protection on equipment that (i) does not require protection and (ii) is impossible to protect with chemical suppression or relief venting.


Submitter Full Name:

Richard Krock

Organization: The Vinyl Institute

Affilliation:

These materials were developed through a cooperative effort involving the Vinyl Institute's outside counsel, Lawrence P. Halprin of Keller and Heckman LLP, the Vinyl Institute staff and the Vinyl Institute member company representatives. These comments also reflect input we received from other trade associations.

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Nov 12 14:47:57 EST 2013

Committee Statement



CommitteeAction:

Rejected but held

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



Public Input No. 33-NFPA 652-2016 [ New Section after 8.3.4.1.2 ]

8.3.4.1.1.3

Rotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all of the followingcriteria are met:

(1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator enclosurehousing the drum filter;









Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement



25 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 56-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. 8.3.4.1.2.1 ]

8.3.4.1.2.1

Wet air–material separators shall be permitted to be located inside when all of the following criteria are met:

(1) Interlocks are provided to shutdown the system if the flow rate of the scrubbing medium is less than the designed minimum flowrate.

(2) The scrubbing medium is not a flammable or combustible liquid.

(3) The separator is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator.

(4) The design of the separator addresses any reaction between the separated material and the scrubbing medium.

NOTE: Because many supplier offer immersion seperators, might consider including, excluding or distiguishing an immesionseperator from a wet knockdown air scrubber, when discussing wet AMS


Better definitions & distinctions of product types & offerings, clarify equipment definitions


Submitter Full Name: Norman Nowosinski

Organization: Nilfisk Industrial Vacuums

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: This PI is not actionable as written as it as there are no proposed revisions to the text. The technical committee is puttingtogether a task group to possibly add annex material on types of wet air material separators.


26 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


Point of Use Dust Collectors From Section 8.7.2.4 of NFPA 61 (Note the annex material appears to be missing from NFPA 61)

X.X* A point-of-use dust collector shall be permitted to be

mounted directly to conveying equipment in both indoor and

outdoor locations, provided all of the following conditions are

met:

(1) When the point-of-use dust collector is mounted to an

enclosure, such as a bucket elevator leg, the enclosure

shall have explosion protection per the provisions of this

standard. The volume of the dirty air side and of the transition

shall be included in the determination of explosion

protection design.

(2) The point-of-use dust collector shall be mounted directly

to the conveying equipment housing via a transition duct

without an airlock

(3) The transition between the point-of-use dust collector

and the vented equipment shall be designed such that

dust will release from the filter media and return to the

equipment product stream and the transition is not a

collection point for dust accumulation under normal

operations.

(4) The cross-sectional area of the transition connection shall

be equal to or greater than the cross-sectional area of the

point-of-use dust collector.

(5) The point-of-use dust collector shall include an integral

air-moving device on the clean side of the dust collector

to maintain negative pressure.

(6) The point-of-use dust collector shall not be connected to

any other pieces of equipment.

(7) Point-of-use dust collectors that return air to the inside of

buildings shall be capable of a minimum filtering efficiency

of 0.02 g per dry standard cubic meter of airflow

(0.008 grains per dry standard cubic feet of airflow).

A.X.X

The purpose of this dust control method is to remove displaced air from the equipment so that it operates under a slight negativepressure in order to reduce fugitive dust emissions from the equipment; to keep the dust generated (from the material beingconveyed) with the material; and eliminate the propagation hazard of interconnecting the conveying equipment through a central dustcollection system. The dust is not removed from the equipment nor does this approach lower the risk of a dust deflagration within the


27 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

equipment itself. The bin vent should be located near the material inlet point on the conveyor. Little dust should be drawn into the binvent

When used on a bucket elevator leg, it is recommended that the bin vent be installed in the down leg of the bucket elevator leg tofacilitate dust release from the filters. The cross sectional area of the transition between the duct and the leg casing should be 2.5times the cross sectional area of the dust collector inlet. The angle of the transition duct to the leg casing should be no less than 60degrees.

This dust control method should be used in conjunction with a good housekeeping program, equipment maintenance strategy, anddust deflagration mitigation actions as required.


Point of use dust collectors are seeing increased use in multiple industries and the TC should consider providing guidance, such as the new guidance in the 2017 edition of NFPA 61



Public Input No. 67-NFPA 652-2016 [New Section after 3.3]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: The standard currently allows this type of dust collector to be installed. However, the committee believes that certain provisions ofthis public input are inconsistent with the requirements of 652 regarding the re circulation of clean air back to the facility. Thispublic input does not adequately address this concern.


28 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.4.2.1 Procedure.

8.4.2.1.1*

Housekeeping procedures shall be documented.

8.4.2.1.2*

The methods used for cleaning removal of dust from surfaces shall be selected on the basis of reducing the potential for creating acombustible dust cloud.

The accumulation of a dust-layer on a surface that is subject to heating (e.g. the surface of a bearing, an electrical motor or a heater)could insulate the surface, increasing the surface temperature above the equipment 'T' rating, to the point where the dust couldself-ignite and smolder.

Housekeeping of a dust-layer that has self-ignited and started smoldering could result in full-ignition as the dust disperses during thehousekeeping process. The burning dust could damage the housekeeping equipment, ignite a larger dust-cloud or a flammable gasrelease in the area or initiate smoldering in other dust-layers.

B efore performing houskeeping of a dust-layer on a potentially hot surface, the dust should be tested to confirm whetherself-ignition and smoldering has initiated .

Note that housekeeping of dust-layers settling after a dust flash-fire should also consider the dust to be smoldering.

8.4.2.1.3

Cleaning methods to be used shall be based on the characteristics of the material and , the quantity of material present and therisks that the dust-layer could have self-ignited .


The potential for housekeeping of a self-ignited and smoldering dust layer to initiate a larger conflagration and/or explosion was not addressed.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-1 for revisions to the annex material for this section. This material was revised to address this PI and the global PI thatwas submitted on cleaning surfaces.


29 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 14-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. 8.4.2.2.1 ]

8.4.2.2.1*

Portable vacuum cleaners that meet the following minimum requirements shall be permitted to be used to collect combustibleparticulate solids in unclassified (nonhazardous) areas:

(1) Materials of construction shall comply with 8.5.7.1.

(2) Hoses shall be conductive or static dissipative.

(3) All conductive components, including wands and attachments, shall be bonded and grounded.

(4) Dust-laden air shall not pass through the fan or blower.

(5) Electrical motors shall not be in the dust-laden air stream unless listed for Class II, Division 1, locations.

(6)

(7) Vacuum cleaners used for metal dusts shall meet the requirements of NFPA 484.

(8) For the collection of self-heating combustible particulate solids wet type dust collectors shall be used

(9) To prevent the identified occurrence of brush and bulking brush discharges conductive collection bags shall be used

(10) When a possible ignition by a single impact has been identified equipment specifically designed to avoid this hazard shall beconsidered

(11) The owner/operator shall proceed with a Dust Hazards Analysis (DHA) in conformance with Chapter 7


Paragraph 8.4.2.2.1

Based on my experience (I work for a manufacturer of NRTL certified explosion-proof vacuum cleaners) the actual defined minimum requirements in paragraph 8.4.2.2.1do not allow the safe recovery of combustible particulate solids in unclassified (nonhazardous) areas.

It should be mentioned that wet type dust collectors must be used in the case of self-heating combustible particulate solids as they can potentially lead to spontaneous ignition.

Conductive collection bags must be used to prevent the identified occurrence of brush and bulking brush discharges which could be an ignition threat.

Also equipment designed to avoid ignition by a single impact shall be considered when this hazard has been identified during combustible particulate solids collection (Collection of solid element like a metal bolt).

I also suggest reminding the owner/operator to proceed with a Dust Hazards Analysis (DHA) in conformance with Chapter 7


Submitter Full Name: Stephane Briquet

Organization: Tiger Vac International Inc

Affilliation: HAZ-LOC PORTABLE VACUUM CLEANERS ORGANIZATION INC.

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue May 10 13:45:15 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Resolution: The proposed revisions to this section could narrow the market for portable vacuum cleaners to a single manufacturer. Thecommittee believes that the additional proposed requirements are not necessary, and the hazards that the provisions wouldprotect against are unlikely to occur. It is noted that the standard already requires that a DHA be performed.

* Where liquids or wet materials are picked up by the vacuum cleaner, paper filter elements shall not be used.


30 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.4.2.2.1*





(4) Dust-laden air shall not pass through the fan or blower. (Dust laden air should be defined as any amount of combustible dust inambient or working air - lacking quantitative measures)

(5) Electrical motors shall not be in the dust-laden air stream unless NRTL certified (as a unit) & listed for Class II, Division 1,locations.

(6)



Better definitinions of terms used and requirement for system and components




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: The committee made changes to avoid the use of the term, "dust laden air", which is not well defined. The committee declined torequire that all electric motors be NRTL certified.



31 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.4.2.2.2*

In Class II electrically classified (hazardous) locations, portable electrically powered vacuum cleaners shall be NRTL certified(components) & listed for the purpose and location or shall be a fixed-pipe suction system with a remotely located exhauster forpermanant blower assemblies, or for portable models, downstream (of motor or exhaust) filtered with hepa or ulpa filters perclassified rating and an AMS installed in conformance with Section 8.3, and they shall be suitable for the dust being collected.


Differentiate portable units from permanent blower/central vac units...if needed. Also introduce HEPA & ULPA language into downstream filtering requirements for inside exhaust....




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: The committee recognizes that this section needs more clarity. A task group has been established to work on this for the seconddraft. The intent of this section is to allow the use of a portable vacuum cleaner or a central vacuum system.


32 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.4.2.2.3

Where flammable vapors or gases are present, vacuum cleaners shall be listed for Class I ( Strike: " and Class II "- Class II ARE FORDUSTS ONLY, NOT GASES OR VAPORS) hazardous locations.


Correction to erroneous language on class




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-11


33 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.4.2.4

To minimise the risks associated with using a brush and pan (or broom and shovel) to remove flammable dust, the followingprecautions shall be applied:

(1) The brush/broom must be specifically designed to eliminate the risks of static generation during the brushing process on thespecific surface.

(2) The dust must not be highly flammable as the friction of the brush with the surface could create an ignition source (static sparkor heat)

(3) The typical particle size of the dust must be large enough rapidly settle without generating a significant dust-cloud.

(4) The dust must be locally brushed directly into the pan and removed.

(5) The dust should not be brushed into piles as such brushing would create a larger, more sustained dust-cloud - this wouldincrease the risk of potential ignition and the consequences of combustion.


The use of dust-pan and brush with highly flammable dusts was not addressed




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: These concerns are addressed by the current annex material for this section. The term "highly flammable" is not defined.Flammable is not the same as combustible. This standard deals with combustible dust. The committee requests that thesubmitter provide additional information on specific hazards and perhaps suggest additional annex material to address concerns.


34 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.4.2.3* Sweeping, Shoveling, Scoop, and Brush Cleaning Method.

The use of scoops, brooms, and brushes for sweeping and shoveling shall ONLY be a permitted cleaning method they comply withSection 8 .4.2.4.


The use of brooms is permitted without specific safeguards




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: See the response to PI-12. This PI deals refers to a section that does not exist, since PI-12 did not result in a first revision to thedocument.


35 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.4.2.6.2*

Where blowdown using compressed air is used, the following precautions shall be followed:

(1) Prior to using compressed air, vacuum Vacuum cleaning, sweeping, or water washdown methods are shall be used prior tousing compressed air to clean surfaces that can be safely accessed.

(2) Dust accumulations in the area after vacuum cleaning, sweeping, or water washdown do not exceed the threshold housekeepingdust accumulation.

(3) Compressed air hoses are equipped with pressure relief nozzles limiting the discharge pressure to 30 psi (207 kPa) inaccordance with OSHA requirements in 29 CFR 1910.242(b).

(4) All electrical equipment, including lighting, potentially exposed to airborne dust in the area during cleaning is suitable for use in aClass II, Division 2, hazardous (classified) location in accordance with NFPA 70.

(5) All ignition sources and hot surfaces capable of igniting a dust cloud or dust layer are shut down or removed from the area.

(6) After blowdown is complete, residual dust on lower surfaces is cleaned prior to re-introduction of potential ignition sources.

(7) Where metal or metal-containing dust or powder under the scope of NFPA 484is present, the requirements of NFPA 484 apply.


This revision places the emphasis on vacuum cleaning, sweeping or water washdown and actually requires those methods first with the term “shall be.”


Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir

Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, Washington

Affilliation: NFPA's Building Code Development Committee (BCDC)

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Jun 16 17:58:50 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Resolution: This concern is already addressed by the current text. Blowdown with compressed air can only be used after other techniquesare used first. The committee believes that this is already clear in the current text.


36 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.4.2.7 Steam Blow Down Method. (Reserved)

This should have precautions based on determining the potential for temperature effects (sublimation/vaporisation), reactions(caramelisation, polymerisation), condensation and concreting, static,


The use of steam looks very specific to a particular industry




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: This PI is not actionable as it does not propose specific changes to the standard.


37 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.4.6.1*

Housekeeping frequency and accumulation goals shall be established to ensure that the accumulated fugitive dust levels on surfacesdo not exceed the threshold approved for housekeeping dust accumulation limits.


This clarifies that the threshold must be approved by the AHJ, as the term is defined.





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: NFPA 652 refers to the industry and commodity specific standard in 8.4.6.2 to establish the threshold housekeeping dustaccumulation limits. 8.4.6.3 defines the relationship between spills and releases and the facilities housekeeping program.


38 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.4.6.1*

Housekeeping frequency and accumulation goals shall be established to ensure that the accumulated fugitive dust levels onsurfaces, excluding non-routine accumulations from process upsets and similar events covered by Section 8.4.6.3, do not exceed thethreshold housekeeping dust accumulation limits.


The recommended changes are required to clarify Section 8.4.6.1 so that it does not conflict with Section 8.4.6.3.





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: NFPA 652 refers to the industry and commodity specific standard in 8.4.6.2 to establish the threshold housekeeping dustaccumulation limits. 8.4.6.3 defines the relationship between spills and releases and the facilities housekeeping program.


39 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.5.3.3

Equipment Open (non-enclosed) equipment that contains combustible dust and is located within the hot work area shall be shutdown, shielded, or both.


There is no apparent reason to shut down or shield closed/enclosed equipment that would protect the enclosed dust from the hot work.





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: This public input is in conflict with the provisions of 51B. Equipment that contains combustible dust must be protected fromignition sources during hot work. This would include shutting down the equipment, shielding it from sparks and heat, or both toprotect from ignition.


40 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.5.5.2*

Bearings Inboard bearings that are directly exposed to a combustible dust atmosphere or that are subject to dust accumulation,either of which poses a deflagration dust ignition hazard, shall be monitored for overheating.


Overheated bearings only pose a deflagration hazard if they are inside a dust cloud, which typically is not the case. Outboard bearings typically are not a problem, and they should be excluded from this requirement.





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: The type of bearing does not matter, this requirement applies to all bearings that are exposed to dust. The committee changedthe term deflagration hazard to dust-ignition hazard to more specifically define the risk.


41 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 32-NFPA 652-2016 [ New Section after 8.5.6.1.1 ]

8.5.6.1.1

An accumulation of combustible dust will not cause a location to be a Class II location if: (1) the average thickness of the layer doesnot exceed the layer depth criterion (LD) as determined in Section 6.1.3.1 of NFPA 654-2013; and (2) the temperature of the surfaceon which the accumulation of combustible dust is located is at least 25 degrees C below the Minimum Dust Layer Ignition Temperature(MIT-layer) based on "Methods for Determining the Minimum Ignition Temperature of Dusts. Part 1: Dust Layer on a Heated Surface ata Constant Temperature" (International Electrotechnical Commission Document 31H (Central Office) 3 published March 1993) and onASTM E2021, “Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Ignition Temperature of Dust Layers,” or equivalent testing methods.


There is a critical conflict between the layer thickness that would trigger housekeeping or protective measures under (1) proposed NFPA 652 (and the other NFPA combustible dust standards) and (2) the guidance provided by NFPA 499, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous (Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas. It is completely impractical to provide for a permissible dust accumulation level under the NFPA combustible dust standards and then have it effectively overridden by an overly conservative NFPA guidance document that would require an enormous expenditure of capital to provide classified electrical equipment that would eliminate the ignition sources that were the reason for controlling the dust accumulation in the first place. We believe it is essential to eliminate that conflict and that this is the appropriate mechanism for addressing that conflict and/or initiating the process within NFPA to eliminate that conflict.





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: Electrical classification for dust locations is determined by NFPA 70 with NFPA 499 as a recommended practice for determiningelectrical classification. The dust standards, NFPA 652, 654, and the other industry specific standards protect against fire, flashfire, and explosion hazards. The criteria for each are different and separate.


42 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.5.6.4*

Preventive maintenance programs for electrical equipment and wiring in Class II and Class III locations shall include provisions toverify that dusttight electrical enclosures are not experiencing significant dust ingress.


If it is a dust tight electrical enclosure, there shouldn’t be significant dust ingress. Additionally, the term significant within code text is vague unless defined.





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: The committee agrees that the use of significant is vague and unenforceable. The term was changed to visible.


43 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.8.3 Fans to Limit Accumulation. (Reserved) - Please note that fans used to limit accumulation do just that - there is stillaccumulation, even a fine coating - and does not preclude the use of good housekeeping practices of vacuuming such areas, andaddressing of dust plumes created by such fans


Cautionary statement on blowdown fans




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: The committee has added requirements for fans used to limit accumulation. This section is no longer reserved.


44 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


8.9.3.1* General.

Where an To the extent feasible, practical and necessary to reduce the risk posed by combustible dust fires and deflagrations to an

acceptable level, where a dust explosion hazard exists within any operating equipment greater than 8 ft3 (0.23 m) of containingvolume, the operating equipment shall be protected from the effects of a deflagration.


Section A.8.9.3.1 conflicts with and acknowledges that Section 8.9.3.1 is infeasible in providing as follows:

A.8.9.3.1 Small containers can pose an explosion hazard; however, explosion protection measures for these units are not always practical. Consideration should be given to explosion hazards when electing to omit protection; 8 ft3 (0.23 m) is roughly the size of a 55 gal (208.2 L) drum.

The standard fails to differentiate between an enclosure and an operating enclosure. The term “dust explosion hazard” is defined as follows:

3.3.15 Dust Explosion Hazard. A dust deflagration hazard in an enclosure that is capable of bursting or rupturing the enclosure due to the development of internal pressure from the deflagration.

It is clearly not only impractical, but infeasible to provide explosion protection to every enclosure of at least 8 ft3 where enclosure is define to include every pipe, tube, etc. It is necessary to perform a risk assessment to identify the enclosures where there is a significant risk of initiating a dust explosion and focus on protecting and isolating those enclosures rather than attempting to protect all enclosures.





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: The proposed language is unenforceable. This can be addressed through the performance of a risk assessment. Annex materialis unenforceable and is meant to provide guidance to the user.


45 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


TITLE OF NEW CONTENT

Add the following new section after 8.9.3.3:

8.9.3.4 The requirement in 8.9.3.3 shall not apply to silos and bins where explosion venting is not practical due to silo or bingeometry, building constraints, or both.


The proposed revision would avoid an impractical result, one very likely not intended by the NFPA 652 Technical Committee. Section 8.9.3.3 appears to require that “enclosures” (of more than eight cubic feet in volume) of operating equipment be “designed to withstand” the pressures resulting from a deflagration. NFPA 652 (in Section 3.3.17) uses NFPA 68 (2013)’s definition of “Enclosure” as a “confined or partially confined volume.” NFPA 652’s Annex material for the definition of “Enclosure” (which is also from NFPA 68 (2013)), then includes “silo” and “bin” as examples of enclosures. Section 8.9 ("Explosion Prevention/Protection of NFPA 652") can thus be read to require explosion venting on all silos and bins. This was very likely not intended by the Technical Committee and is impractical in certain applications.

To resolve the issue, we recommend the addition of a provision modeled on one in NFPA 61 (2017), which has the same definition of “Enclosure” as well as the same Annex material as NFPA 652, but which has a provision (Section 8.8.2.1.2.2) that recognizes that explosion venting on silos and bins is at times infeasible by making the explosion venting design requirement in Section 8.8.2.1.2 inapplicable to certain silos and bins. The relevant language in NFPA 61 (2017) is as follows:

8.8 Explosion Prevention/Protection

8.8.1 General

Explosion prevention, relief, and venting, as used in this standard, shall encompass the design and installation of devices and systems to vent the gases and overpressure resulting from a deflagration occurring in equipment, rooms, buildings, or other enclosures so that damage is minimized.

* * *

8.8.2.1.2

The design shall offer the least possible resistance to explosion pressures.

* * *

8.8.2.1.2.2

The requirement in 8.8.2.1.2 shall not apply to bins and silos where explosion venting is not practical due to bin or silo geometry, building constraints, or both.

The new section after 8.9.3.3 of NFPA 652 being recommended recognizes and addresses the impracticality of providing explosion venting on certain silos and bins.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: Chapter 8 is not retroactive and is not commodity-specific. The determination of the need for explosion protection on a silo or bincould be accomplished through a risk assessment. A newly designed and installed bin or silo could be designed with explosionprotection where is it was determined to be needed. Since the provision is not retroactive, installing protection on an oldersystem, where it might not be practical due to geometry or other considerations, would be not required.


46 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


9.4.6

A thorough inspection of the operating area shall take place, on an as-needed basis a schedule as established by theowner/operator and the manufacturers recommendations, to help ensure that the equipment is in safe operating condition and thatproper work practices are being followed.


What defines the need? Inspections should be on a schedule.





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: In response to PI-16 stating that inspections should be performed on a specified schedule. This changes inspections to periodicwalk throughs, and directs the user to section 9.4.3 for the establishment of a schedule.


47 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 24-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. A.3.3.5 ]


48 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

A.3.3.5 Combustible Dust.


49 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

The term combustible dust when used in this standard includes powders, fines, fibers, etc.

Dusts traditionally were defined as material 420 μm or smaller (capable of passing through a U.S. No. 40 standard sieve). Forconsistency with other standards, 500 μm (capable of passing through a U.S. No. 35 standard sieve) is now considered anappropriate size criterion. Particle surface area-to-volume ratio is a key factor in determining the rate of combustion. Combustibleparticulate solids with a minimum dimension more than 500 μm generally have a surface-to-volume ratio that is too small to pose adeflagration hazard. Flat platelet-shaped particles, flakes, or fibers with lengths that are large compared to their diameter usually donot pass through a 500 μm sieve, yet could still pose a deflagration hazard. Many particulates accumulate electrostatic charge inhandling, causing them to attract each other, forming agglomerates. Often agglomerates behave as if they were larger particles, yetwhen they are dispersed they present a significant hazard. Consequently, it can be inferred that any particulate that has a minimumdimension less than or equal to 500 μm could behave as a combustible dust if suspended in air or the process specific oxidizer. If theminimum dimension of the particulate is greater than 500 μm, it is unlikely that the material would be a combustible dust, asdetermined by test. The determination of whether a sample of combustible material presents a flash-fire or explosion hazard could bebased on a screening test methodology such as provided in the ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds.Alternatively, a standardized test method such as ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration ofCombustible Dusts, could be used to determine dust explosibility. [654, 2013]

There is some possibility that a sample will result in a false positive in the 20 L sphere when tested by the ASTM E1226 screeningtest or the ASTM E1515 test. This is due to the high energy ignition source overdriving the test. When the lowest ignition energyallowed by either method still results in a positive result, the owner/operator can elect to determine whether the sample is a

combustible dust with screening tests performed in a larger scale (≥1 m3) enclosure, which is less susceptible to overdriving and thuswill provide more realistic results. [654, 2013]

This possibility for false positives has been known for quite some time and is attributed to “overdriven” conditions that exist in the 20 Lchamber due to the use of strong pyrotechnic igniters. For that reason, the reference method for explosibility testing is based on a

1 m3 chamber, and the 20 L chamber test method is calibrated to produce results comparable to those from the 1 m3 chamber formost dusts. In fact, the U.S. standard for 20 L testing (ASTM E1226) states, “The objective of this test method is to develop data that

can be correlated to those from the 1 m3 chamber (described in ISO 6184-1, and VDI 3673)…” ASTM E1226 further states, “Becausea number of factors (concentration, uniformity of dispersion, turbulence of ignition, sample age, etc.) can affect the test results, thetest vessel to be used for routine work must be standardized using dust samples whose KSt and Pmax parameters are known in the

1 m3 chamber.” [654, 2013]

NFPA 68 also recognizes this problem and addresses it stating that “the 20 L test apparatus is designed to simulate results of the

1 m3 chamber; however, the igniter discharge makes it problematic to determine KSt values less than 50 bar-m/sec. Where the

material is expected to yield KSt values less than 50 bar-m/sec, testing in a 1 m3 chamber might yield lower values.” [654, 2013]

Any time a combustible dust is processed or handled, a potential for deflagration exists. The degree of deflagration hazard varies,depending on the type of combustible dust and the processing methods used. [654, 2013]

A dust deflagration has the following four requirements:

(1) Combustible dust

(2) Dust dispersion in air or other oxidant

(3) Sufficient concentration at or exceeding the minimum explosible concentration (MEC)

(4) Sufficiently powerful ignition source such as an electrostatic discharge, an electric current arc, a glowing ember, a hot surface, awelding slag, frictional heat, or a flame

[654, 2013]

If the deflagration is confined and produces a pressure sufficient to rupture the confining enclosure, the event is, by definition, an“explosion.” [654, 2013]

Evaluation of the hazard of a combustible dust should be determined by the means of actual test data. Each situation should beevaluated and applicable tests selected. The following list represents the factors that are sometimes used in determining thedeflagration hazard of a dust:

(1) MEC

(2) MIE

(3) Particle size distribution

(4) Moisture content as received and as tested

(5) Maximum explosion pressure at optimum concentration

(6) Maximum rate of pressure rise at optimum concentration

(7) KSt (normalized rate of pressure rise) as defined in ASTM E1226,Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds

(8) Layer ignition temperature

(9) Dust cloud ignition temperature

(10) Limiting oxidant concentration (LOC) to prevent ignition

(11) Electrical volume resistivity

(12) Charge relaxation time

(13) Chargeability

[654, 2013]


50 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

It is important to keep in mind that as a particulate is processed, handled, or transported, the particle size generally decreases due toparticle attrition. Consequently, it is often necessary to evaluate the explosibility of the particulate at multiple points along the process.Where process conditions dictate the use of oxidizing media other than air (nominally taken as 21 percent oxygen and 79 percentnitrogen), the applicable tests should be conducted in the appropriate process-specific medium. [654, 2013]

This section should be maintained as written. It has been relied upon during the past year for determination of explosbility of dusts. The issue of over-driven results when the 20 L sphere is used is further discussed in published peer reviewed papers by B. Ganesanet al and AnnMarie Fauske. (Ganesan, B., Parnell Jr., C. B., McGee, R. O., & Faulkner, W.B (2015); A critical evaluation ofexplosible dust testing methods: Part II. Applied Engineering in Agriculture , Vol 31(2) 203-209. http://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=45458&t=1&redir=aid=45458&confalias=&redir=[volume=31&issue=2&conf=aeaj&orgconf=aeaj2015]&redirType=toc_journals.asp&redirType=toc_journals.asp ), (Fauske, A (2014) Combustible Dust Basics, Part 3: What isOverdriving? http://blog.fauske.com/blog/bid/381834/Combustible-Dust-Basics-Part-3-What-is-Overdriving ).


There is no problem with this section. We are supporting this section as written, and offering two papers in support of this section.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: This is not actionable as it does not provide specific code language. If the submitter provided copies of the referenced papers tothe committee, they would consider adding them to the list of informational references in Annex D.


51 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 27-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. A.3.3.17 ]

A.3.3.17 Enclosure.

Examples of enclosures include a room, building, vessel, silo, bin, pipe, or duct. [ 68, 2013]


The Annex material for the definition of “Enclosure” can be read to require explosion venting on all silos and bins under the requirements of Section 8.9 of NFPA 652, Explosion Prevention/Protection. Providing explosion venting on all silos and bins is not practical due to silo or bin geometry, building constraints, or both. If the new section after 8.9.3.3 recommended in a separate public comment is not accepted, then the words “silo” and “bin” need to be deleted as well as removing the reference to “[68, 2013]” in the Annex material for the definition of “Enclosure.”




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: Bins and Silos are examples of enclosures. Annex material is not enforceable and is meant to be informative only.


52 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 68-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. A.5.2 ]


53 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

A.5.2


54 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Test data derived from testing material within a facility Testing actual material from a specific process or area ofthe faciity will result inthe most accurate results for the DHA, performance-based design, and hazard management options. Testing is not required todetermine whether the material has combustibility characteristics where reliable, in-house commodity-specific testing data orpublished data of well-characterized samples (i.e., particle size, moisture content, and test conditions) are available. Published datashould be used for preliminary assessment of combustibility only. However, for protection or prevention design methods, the data canbe acceptable after a thorough review to ensure that they are representative of owner/operator conditions.

The protection or prevention designs are based on explosivity properties, which can vary based on the specific characteristics of thematerial. (See 5.2.2 for characteristics that can affect explosibility properties.) Historical Historical knowledge and experience ofoccurrence or nonoccurrence of process incidents such as flash fires, small fires, sparkling fires, pops, or booms, or evidence ofvessel, tank, or container overpressure should not be used as a substitute for hazard analysis. Process incidents are indications of amaterial or process resulting in combustibility or explosion propensity. Process incidents can be used to guide or select samples forand supplement testing.

The following material properties should be addressed by a DHA for the combustible particulate solids present:

(1) Particle Size. Sieve analysis is a crude and unreliable system of hazard determination. Its greatest contribution in managing thehazard is the ease, economy, and speed at which it can be used to discover changes in the process particulate. In any sample ofparticulate, very rarely are all the particles the same size. Sieve analysis can be used to determine the fraction that would begenerally suspected of being capable of supporting a deflagration.

For a sub-500 micron fraction:

(a) Data presented in terms of the percent passing progressively smaller sieves.

(b) Particles that have high aspect ratios can produce distorted, nonconservative results conservatively large particle sizes .

(2) Particle Size Distribution. The particle size distribution of a combustible particulate solid must be known if the explosion hazardis to be assessed solid is an important parameter in assessing an explosion hazard . Particle size implies a specific surface area(SSA) and affects the numerical measure of other parameters such as MEC, MIE, dP/dtmax , Pmax and KSt . Particles greater

than 500 microns in effective mean particle diameter are generally not considered deflagratory. Most combustible particulatesolids include a range of particle sizes in any given sample. The DHA should anticipate and account for particle attrition andseparation as particulate is handled.

(3) Particle Shape. Due to particle shape and agglomeration, some particulates cannot be sieved effectively. Particulates withnonspheric or noncubic shapes do not pass through a sieve as easily as spheric or cubic particles. For this purpose, long fiberscan behave just as explosively as spherical particulate of a similar diameter . This leads to underestimation of small particlepopulations and to underassessment of the hazard. Particulates with an aspect ratio greater than 3:1 should be suspect. Whenparticulates are poured into vessels, it is common for the fine particles to separate from the large, creating a deflagration hazardin the ullage space.

(4) Particle Aging. Some combustible particulate solid materials could undergo changes in their safety characteristics due to aging.Changes in morphology and chemical composition, for example, can occur from the time a sample is collected to the time ittakes to get that sample into the lab for a test is tested . For materials that are known to age, care must be taken in packagingand shipment. The use of vacuum seals, or an inert gas such as nitrogen, could be required to ensure that the tested sample hasnot changed appreciably due to aging. The lab should be notified in advance of shipment that the material is sensitive to changedue to age so that they will know how to handle it and store it until it is tested.

(5) Particle Attrition. The material submitted for testing should be selected to address the effects of material attrition as it is movedthrough the process. As particulates move through a process they usually break down into smaller particles. Reduction in particlesize leads to an increase in total surface area to mass ratio of the particulate and increases the hazard associated with theunoxidized particulate.

(6) Particle Suspension. Particle suspension maximizes the fuel–air interface. It occurs wherever particulate moves relative to the airor air moves relative to the particulate, such as in pneumatic conveying, pouring, fluidizing, mixing and blending, or particle sizereduction.

(7) Particle Agglomeration. Some particulates tend to agglomerate into clumps. Agglomerating particulates can be more hazardousthan the test data imply if the particulate was not thoroughly deagglomerated when testing was conducted. Agglomeration isusually affected by ambient humidity.

(8) Triboelectric Attraction. Particles with a chemistry that allows electrostatic charge accumulation will become charged duringhandling. Charged particles attract oppositely charged particles. Agglomeration causes particulate to exhibit lower explosionmetrics during testing. Humidification decreases the triboelectric effect.

(9) Hydrogen Bonding. Hydrophilic particulates attract water molecules that are adsorbed onto the particle surface. Adsorbed waterprovides hydrogen bonding to adjacent particles, causing them to agglomerate. Agglomeration causes particulate to exhibit lowerexplosion metrics during testing. Desiccation reduces this agglomerated effect.

(10) Entrainment Fraction. The calculation for a dust dispersion from an accumulated layer should be corrected for the ease ofentrainment of the dust. Fuel chemistry and agglomeration/adhesion forces should be considered. The dispersion is generally afunction of humidity, temperature, and time. Particle shape and morphology and effective particle size should be considered.

(11) Combustible Concentration. When particles are suspended, a concentration gradient will develop where concentration variescontinuously from high to low. There is a minimum concentration that must exist before a flame front will propagate. Thisconcentration depends on particle size and chemical composition and is measured in grams/cubic meter (ounces/cubic foot).This concentration is called the minimum explosible concentration (MEC). A dust dispersion can come from a layer of

accumulated fugitive dust. The concentration attained depends on bulk density of dust layer (measured in grams/m 3), layerthickness, and the extent of the dust cloud. Combustible concentration is calculated as: Concentration = (bulk density)*[(layerthickness)/(dust cloud thickness)]

(12) Competent Igniter. Ignition occurs where sufficient energy per unit of time and volume is applied to a deflagratory particulate


55 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

suspension. Energy per unit of mass is measured as temperature. When the temperature of the suspension is increased to theauto-ignition temperature, combustion begins. Ignitability is usually characterized by measuring the minimum ignition energy(MIE). The ignition source must provide sufficient energy per unit of time (power) to raise the temperature of the particulate to itsautoignition temperature (AIT).

(13) Dustiness/dispersibility. Ignition and sustained combustion occurs where a fuel and competent ignition course source cometogether in an atmosphere (oxidant) that supports combustion. The fire triangle represents the three elements required for a fire.Not all dusts are combustible, and combustible dusts exhibit a range in degree of hazard. All combustible dusts can exhibitexplosion hazards accompanied by propagation away from the source. In the absence of confinement, a flash-fire hazard results.If confined, the deflagration can result in damaging overpressures. Deflagration is the process resulting in a flash fire or anexplosion. The four elements for a flash fire are the following:

(14) A combustible dust sufficiently small enough to burn rapidly and propagate flame

(15) A suspended cloud at a concentration greater than the minimum explosion concentration

(16) The atmosphere to support combustion

(17) An ignition source of adequate energy or temperature to ignite the dust cloud

The heat flux from combustible metal flash fires is greater than organic materials (see Figure A.5.2 ) .

A dust explosion requires the following five conditions:



(3) Confinement of the dust cloud by an enclosure or partial enclosure



Figure A.5.2 Elements Required for Fires, Flash Fires, and Explosions.


Made revisions to correct typographical errors and clarify some statements.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement



56 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Statement: Made revisions to correct typographical errors and clarify some statements.


57 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 55-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. B.3.4.3 ]

B.3.4.3

The DHA should classify locations into three general categories:

(1) Not a hazard

(2) Maybe a hazard

(3) Deflagration hazard

This will help the owner/operator prioritize management of the hazards. Additionally, it will identify the locations where moreinformation is necessary before a definitive determination can be made. NOTE: It is believed tha the DHA should more specificallydesignate which equipment certified to what class or location, can be used in which category: If the DHA classifies a location to be#2 - Maybe a hazard, does the DHA/AHJ then suggest or require NFPA compliant designed equipment or Class II certifiedequipment?


Asking for clarification on example of use of equipment per simple classification std




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: This public input is not actionable as it does not propose specific code changes.


58 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 40-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. B.4.5.2.4 ]

B.4.5.2.4

Are there competent igniters available? Yes. In addition to the igniters identified in B.4.5.1.4, a number of ignition mechanisms areintroduced by the fan. further examples are: Overheated drive bearings (especially the inboard bearing) due to bearing failure fromlack of proper lubrication, fatigue, wear, etc., fan impeller/wheel imbalance caused by wear, material accumulation on the blades,bearing failure, etc., which can result in sparking by housing contact.


The examples provided are proven problems that can occur with a material handling (or other industrial) fans. This further assists the reader in understanding the scope of the DHA.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: The examples provided are proven problems that can occur with a material handling (or other industrial) fans. This further assiststhe reader in understanding the scope of the DHA.


59 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


B.4.5.2.5

What hazard management is in place? SeeB.4.5.1.5. It is difficult to apply hazard management to a material conveyance fan. Usuallyhazard management is applied downstream from the fan Other hazard managment methods would include vibration monitoring(either by personnel on a regular basis or by a monitoring device), temperature monitoring of the drive bearings (by personnel ormonitoring device) and amperage monitoring of the drive motor (amperage is directly related to the air mass flow - the higher theamperage the more air mass flow) .


Such methods of hazard management have been proven successful in monitoring fan performance and indicating problems before they become a significant hazard.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: Such methods of hazard management have been proven successful in monitoring fan performance and indicating problemsbefore they become a significant hazard.


60 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

Public Input No. 42-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. B.4.5.7 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]

While the drawing shows these as separate components, most mills have an integral discharge fan. Most mills of this type require airflow through the mill as part of the millling process and this is typically provided by a fan package (positive or negative pressuredepending uppon type of system). This fan package can be integral to the mill or as a separate device.


The previous annex indicated that integral fans are typical for such mills, while it is the submitter's experience, with literally hundreds of such devices and systems, that the fan package is separate nearly all the time and that integral fans are the exception and not the norm.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: The previous annex indicated that integral fans are typical for such mills, while it is the submitter's experience, with literallyhundreds of such devices and systems, that the fan package is separate nearly all the time and that integral fans are theexception and not the norm.


61 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


B.4.5.7.1

Is the particulate deflagrable (explosible)? It depends. What is the target product particle size? If the mill has 1⁄4 in. screens, then theunit is receiving large particles and making them less large, but they're still too large to be considered a deflagrable (explosible)particulate. But there are also included fines. If the mill is reducing the particulate down to 250 μ, then all the particulate would beconsidered deflagrable (explosible). Therefore, the determination of whether the particulate in the mill is deflagrable is based on therange of particle size exiting the mill. It is usually necessary to submit this material for a go/no-go screening test to determine if themixture exiting the mill is capable of propagating a deflagration flame front. However, because no mill is 100% efficient there is alikelihood of combustible dust inside the mill either as accumulations, "remilling" caused by turbulence, wear, etc. Most mills areconsidered frequent sources for sparks and any accumulations in the mill could result in ember production. Also, if there is anintegral fan package such device would normally provide further attrition of the particle sizes. Therefore, using an analysis of theparticle sizes of the normal discharge of the mill could be misleading.


Combustible dust is almost always present in a mill, especially with an integral fan package.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: Combustible dust is almost always present in a mill, especially with an integral fan package.


62 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


B.4.5.7.2

Is the particulate suspended in air? Yes. Inside the mill the particulate is in continuous air suspension. In addition if there is anintegral fan package there is suspension by the fan impeller.


Fan influence needs to be considered.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: Fan influence needs to be considered.


63 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


B.4.5.7.3

Is there sufficient concentration to support deflagration? This again depends on the test data and a sieve analysis Because most millswill produce fines during the milling process (due to remilling, turbulence, accumulations on internal surfaces, wear, etc.) and it isdifficult to be assured the fines concentrations do not exceed the MEC, it is best to assume sufficient combustible dusts are present. However, some low-speed mills (e.g. shredders) designed to produce only large particles may allow a determination from a seiveanalysis and/or testing . Remember that while a sieve analysis is not a definitive criterion for identifying whether a particulate isdeflagrable (explosible), it is a very valuable tool for identifying changes that have occurred in the process that signify a change in thehazard associated with the particulate. It is a management of change and safety assessment audit tool.


Mills are not 100% efficient and the milling process is not truly steady-state as it will vary over time (due to material variations, maintenance levels, wear, etc.). Thus, a sieve analysis is only representative of the time it was taken and does not take into account the changes that occur rapidly and/or over time.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: Mills are not 100% efficient and the milling process is not truly steady-state as it will vary over time (due to material variations,maintenance levels, wear, etc.). Thus, a sieve analysis is only representative of the time it was taken and does not take intoaccount the changes that occur rapidly and/or over time.


64 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


B.4.5.7.4

Are there competent igniters available? Most mills are capable of igniting the material being milled. If tramp metal gets into theprocess stream it is likely that the particulate will exit burning, at the very least. Also, integral, or external, fan packages representadditional hazards similar to the fan of B.4.5.2.4.


The fan package, whether integral to the mill or separate, represents a significant hazard that should also be considered.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: The fan package, whether integral to the mill or separate, represents a significant hazard that should also be considered.


65 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


B.4.5.7.5

What hazard management is in place? Are there magnetic separators or traps on the infeed to the mill? Is there deflagrationsuppression and isolation on the mill? Even if the mill is designed to be strong enough to withstand a deflagration within (many are),the deflagration flame front will exit the mill via the infeed and outfeed. What provisions are in place to isolate the mill from the rest ofthe process? In addition any integral or external (in-line) fan package would require management such as that discussed inB.4.5.2.5.


The fan package needs to be included in the discussion. Assumes the recommended changes of a previous submission for B.4.5.2.5.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: The fan package needs to be included in the discussion. Assumes the recommended changes of a previous submission forB.4.5.2.5.


66 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


B.4.5.8.4

Are there competent igniters available? Yes. This duct is immediately downstream from the mill and/or fan package , which can be asource of ignition.


The fan which creates the air flow the the mill must also be considered.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: The fan which creates the air flow the the mill must also be considered.


67 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


B.4.5.9.2

Is the particulate suspended in air? This depends on the type, make, and model of the screens used. Some agitate the material moreaggressively than others. An analysis of the operating screens for the presence of a dust suspension should be undertaken todetermine if this criterion is satisfied.

Most screens leak dust into the building interior, and that issue has to be addressed Without proper dust collection these devices canemit combustible dusts into the surrounding area .


Without dust collection (usually only on the inlet and outlet portions of the screen to assure the screening process is not inhibited), even with good enclosure of the screen and screening process, dust emissions can and most likely will occur. This is especially true over time when flex connections, seals, etc., tend to wear, etc.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: Without dust collection (usually only on the inlet and outlet portions of the screen to assure the screening process is notinhibited), even with good enclosure of the screen and screening process, dust emissions can and most likely will occur. This isespecially true over time when flex connections, seals, etc., tend to wear, etc.


68 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM


B.4.5.12.5

What hazard management is in place? The occupants must be protected from dust collector — fires as well as dust collectorexplosions. (In many industries dust collector fires outnumber dust collector explosions.) For dust collector fire, return air diversion toprevent combustion products from entering the building is sufficient. (Generally, dust collectors collecting metallic particulates are notpermitted to return air to the building.) To protect occupants from the dust collector explosion, a common approach is to installdeflagration isolation as well as either deflagration venting or deflagration suppression. If a fire occurs in the dust collector thenaborting (for the smoke, etc.) or other managements methdos should be considered. The protection feature in place should bedocumented.


smoke, etc., should also be considered when returning the air back into a compartment/building.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: This concept is already addressed in the second sentence.


69 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM

National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Combustible Dusts FROM: Kelly Carey, Project Administrator DATE: November 1, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 652 First Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2018)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot.

31 Members Eligible to Vote 2 Members Not Returned (Christman, Floyd) 22 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions (w/ comment: Cholin, Frank, Gombar, Hansen, Osborn, Rodgers, Stevenson, Ural, Zalosh) 7 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (Frank, Hansen, Myers, Norris, Reason, Stevenson, Ural) 0 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each revision.

To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an affirmative vote of 2/3 of ballots returned. See Sections 3.3.4.3.(c) and 4.3.10.1 of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.

First Revision No. 30-NFPA 652-2016 [ Global Input ]

All instances of Dust Hazard Analysis should be Dust Hazards Analysis. Please change to the plural all throughout


Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad

Organization: [ Not Specified ]

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Aug 10 15:07:09 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Establishes consistent terminology throughout the document.

Response Message:

Ballot Results

This item has passed ballot

31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All

0 Affirmative with Comments

1 Negative with Comments

0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce


1 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

kcarey

Text Box

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Negative with Comment

Myers, Timothy J.

Prefer term Dust Hazard Analysis. Already in use in other documents, and other historically used terms use singular term Hazard, such asProcess Hazard Analysis


2 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


Change title of Section 8.3.4 from AMS Locations to AMS. (delete the term location)

Current section 8.3.5 (AMS Clean Exhaust) should be renumbered 8.3.4.3 - renumber all subsequent sections.



Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Aug 15 10:58:03 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Clarifies title of section and revises numbering of the chapter to reflect the committees intent.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.


3 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Affirmative with Comment

Ural, Erdem A.

Add Air Material Separator before (AMS)


4 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


Move 8.4, Housekeeping, 8.6, PPE, and 8.5.3, Hot Work to Chapter 9, right after 9.3. Leave heading for 8.5.3, Hot Work, inChapter 8 and refer the reader to the new location in Chapter 9 for the requirements.

Supplemental Information

File Name Description

652-2016_Chapter_8_Material_to_be_moved..docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 11:17:56 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee is moving several of the management system elements from Chapter 8 to Chapter 9. Management systemrequirements are more appropriately located in Chapter 9, which is titled, Management Systems. This makes it clear to the userthat they are retroactive, and that they are retained prescriptive requirements for the performance-based design option. Thesesections are 8.4, Housekeeping, 8.6, Personnel Protective Equipment, and 8.5.3, Hot Work.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.


5 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Myers, Timothy J.

Other standards have already been directed to follow existing section numbering of the first edition of NFPA 652. Moving sections from onechapter to another each revision cycle makes it impossible to maintain consistency in numbering between NFPA 652 and commodity specificstandards, and makes it difficult for users to compare different standards to identify the requirements that they need to follow. Moving sectionsfrom one chapter to another should be discouraged.


6 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

8.4 Housekeeping.

8.4.1 General.

Unless otherwise specified, the requirements of Section 8.4 shall be applied retroactively.

8.4.2* Methodology.

8.4.2.1 Procedure.

8.4.2.1.1*

Housekeeping procedures shall be documented.

8.4.2.1.2*

The methods used for cleaning surfaces shall be selected on the basis of reducing the potential for creating a combustible dust cloud.

8.4.2.1.3

Cleaning methods to be used shall be based on the characteristics of the material and quantity of material present.

8.4.2.2 Vacuum Cleaning Method.

First Revision No. 10-NFPA 652-2016 Edit Hide Markup

8.4.2.2.1*

Portable vacuum cleaners that meet the following minimum requirements shall be permitted to be used to collect combustible particulate solids in unclassified (nonhazardous) areas:




(4) Dust-laden air shall not pass through the fan or blowerThe fan or blower shall be on the clean-side of the primary filtration media or wet separation chamber.

(5) Electrical motors shall not be in located on the dust-laden air stream dirty-side of the primary filtration media or wet separation chamber unless listed for Class II, Division 1, locations.

(6) * Where liquids or wet materials are picked up by the vacuum cleaner, paper filter elements shall not be used.


Portable vacuum cleaners that meet the following minimum requirements shall be permitted to be used to collect combustible particulate solids in unclassified (nonhazardous) areas:




(4) Dust-laden air shall not pass through the fan or blower.

(5) Electrical motors shall not be in the dust-laden air stream unless listed for Class II, Division 1, locations.

(6) *Where liquids or wet materials are picked up by the vacuum cleaner, paper filter elements shall not be used.


8.4.2.2.2*

In Class II electrically classified (hazardous) locations, electrically powered vacuum cleaners shall be listed for the purpose and location or shall be a fixed-pipe suction system with a remotely located exhauster and an AMS installed in conformance with Section 8.3, and they shall be suitable for the dust being collected.


8.4.2.2.3

Where In Class II areas where flammable vapors or gases are present, vacuum cleaners shall be listed for both Class I and Class II hazardous locations.

Where flammable vapors or gases are present, vacuum cleaners shall be listed for Class I and Class II hazardous locations.

8.4.2.3* Sweeping, Shoveling, Scoop, and Brush Cleaning Method.

The use of scoops, brooms, and brushes for sweeping and shoveling shall be a permitted cleaning method.

8.4.2.4* Water Washdown Cleaning Method.

8.4.2.4.1

The use of water washdown shall be a permitted cleaning method.

8.4.2.4.2

Where the combustible dust being removed is metal or metal-containing dust or powder within the scope of NFPA 484 the requirements of NFPA 484 shall be followed.

8.4.2.4.3*

Where the combustible dust being removed is a water-reactive material, additional precautions shall be taken to control the associated hazards.

8.4.2.5 Water Foam Washdown Systems. (Reserved)

8.4.2.6 Compressed Air Blowdown Method.

8.4.2.6.1*

Blowdowns using compressed air shall be permitted to be used as a cleaning method in accordance with the provisions of 8.4.2.6.2.

8.4.2.6.2*

Where blowdown using compressed air is used, the following precautions shall be followed:

(1) Prior to using compressed air, vacuum cleaning, sweeping, or water washdown methods are used to clean surfaces that can be safely accessed.

(2) Dust accumulations in the area after vacuum cleaning, sweeping, or water washdown do not exceed the threshold housekeeping dust accumulation.

(3) Compressed air hoses are equipped with pressure relief nozzles limiting the discharge pressure to 30 psi (207 kPa) in accordance with OSHA requirements in 29 CFR 1910.242(b).

(4) All electrical equipment, including lighting, potentially exposed to airborne dust in the area during cleaning is suitable for use in a Class II, Division 2, hazardous (classified) location in accordance with NFPA 70.

(5) All ignition sources and hot surfaces capable of igniting a dust cloud or dust layer are shut down or removed from the area.

(6) After blowdown is complete, residual dust on lower surfaces is cleaned prior to re-introduction of potential ignition sources.

(7) Where metal or metal-containing dust or powder under the scope of NFPA 484is present, the requirements of NFPA 484 apply.

8.4.2.7 Steam Blow Down Method. (Reserved)

8.4.3 Training.

Employee and contractor training shall include housekeeping procedures, required personal protective equipment (PPE) during housekeeping, and proper use of equipment.

8.4.4 Equipment. (Reserved)

8.4.5 Vacuum Trucks.

8.4.5.1

Vacuum trucks shall be grounded and bonded.

8.4.5.2

Vacuum truck hoses and couplings shall be static dissipative or conductive and grounded.

8.4.6 Frequency and Goal.

8.4.6.1*

Housekeeping frequency and accumulation goals shall be established to ensure that the accumulated fugitive dust levels on surfaces do not exceed the threshold housekeeping dust accumulation limits.

8.4.6.2

The threshold housekeeping dust accumulation limits shall be in accordance with the industry- or commodity-specific NFPA standard. (See 1.3.1.)

8.4.6.3*

Provisions for unscheduled housekeeping shall include specific requirements establishing time to clean local dust spills or transient releases.

8.4.7 Auditing and Documentation.

8.4.7.1*

Housekeeping effectiveness shall be assessed based on the results of routine scheduled cleaning and inspection, not including transient releases.

8.4.7.2

The owner/operator shall retain documentation that routine scheduled cleaning occurs in accordance with the frequency and accumulation goals established in 8.4.6.1.

8.5.3 Hot Work.


8.5.3.1*

All In addition to the requirements of NFPA 51B, all hot work activities shall comply with 8.5.3.2 through 8.5.3.5 the following requirements of NFPA 51B.

All hot work activities shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 51B.

8.5.3.2*

The area affected by hot work shall be thoroughly cleaned of combustible dust prior to commencing any hot work.

8.5.3.3

Equipment that contains combustible dust and is located within the hot work area shall be shut down, shielded, or both.

8.5.3.4

When the hot work poses an ignition risk to the combustible dust within equipment, the equipment shall be shut down and cleaned prior to commencing such hot work.

8.5.3.5

Floor and wall openings within the hot work area shall be covered or sealed.


8.5.3.6 Portable Electrical Equipment. (Reserved)

Use of portable electrical equipment that does not comply with the electrical classification of the area where it is to be used shall be authorized and controlled in accordance with the hot work procedure as outlined in this section

8.6 Personal Protective Equipment.

8.6.1 Workplace Hazard Assessment.

8.6.1.1*

An assessment of workplace hazards shall be conducted as described in NFPA 2113.

8.6.1.2

When the assessment in 8.6.1.1 has determined that flame-resistant garments are needed, personnel shall be provided with and wear flame-resistant garments.

8.6.1.3*

When flame-resistant clothing is required for protecting personnel from flash fires, it shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 2112.

8.6.1.4*

Consideration shall be given to the following:

(1) Thermal protective characteristics of the fabric over a range of thermal exposures

(2) Physical characteristics of the fabric

(3) Garment construction and components

(4) Avoidance of static charge buildup

(5) Design of garment

(6) Conditions under which garment will be worn

(7) Garment fit

(8) Garment durability/wear life

(9) Recommended laundering procedures

(10) Conditions/features affecting wearer comfort

8.6.1.5

Flame-resistant garments shall be selected, procured, inspected, worn, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 2113.

8.6.1.6*

The employer shall implement a policy regarding care, cleaning, and maintenance for flame-resistant garments.

8.6.2 Limitations of PPE Application. (Flame-Resistant Garments)

8.6.2.1*

When required by 8.6.1.2, flame-resistant or non-melting undergarments shall be used.

8.6.2.2*

When determined by 8.6.1.1 that flame-resistant garments are needed, only flame-resistant outerwear shall be worn over flame-resistant daily wear.

8.6.3 Limitations of PPE to Combustible Dust Flash Fires. (Reserved)

8.6.4 Face, Hands, and Footwear Protection. (Reserved)

First Revision No. 6-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. 1.3.3 ]

1.3.3

This standard shall not apply to the following:

(1) Storage or use of consumer quantities of such materials on the premises of residential or office occupancies

(2) Storage or use of commercially packaged materials at retail facilities

(3) Such materials displayed in original packaging in mercantile occupancies and intended for personal or household use or asbuilding materials

(4)

(5) Such materials stored or used in farm buildings or similar occupancies for on-premises agricultural purposes



Annex_Material_for_FR-2.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Response to PI-29. Adds annex material to 1.3.3 (4).

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

* Warehousing of sealed containers of such materials when not associated with an operation that handles or generatescombustible dust


7 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


8 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

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


1.4.1*

For the purposes of this standard, the industry- or commodity-specific NFPA standards shall include the following:

(1) NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities

(2) NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals

(3) NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling ofCombustible Particulate Solids

(4) NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfure Sulfur Fires and Explosions

(5) NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Fixing typographical error.

Response Message:

Public Input No. 62-NFPA 652-2016 [Section No. 1.4.1]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.


9 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


10 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM




ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2012a.





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Date updates.

Response Message:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.


11 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


12 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 67-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. 2.4 ]

2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections.

NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work, 2014 edition.

NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2013 2018 edition.

NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2014 edition.

NFPA 221, Standard for High Challenge Fire Walls, Fire Walls, and Fire Barrier Walls, 2015 2018 edition.

NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals, 2015 edition.

NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling ofCombustible Particulate Solids, 2013 2017 edition.

NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2014 2017 edition.

NFPA 1250, Recommended Practice in Fire and Emergency Services Organization Risk Management, 2015 2018 edition.

NFPA 1451, Standard for a Fire and Emergency Service Vehicle Operations Training Program, 2013 2018 edition.

NFPA 5000 ® , Building Construction and Safety Code ® , 2018 edition.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Aug 18 11:09:58 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Change in edition dates for extracts - changes made for first draft only. Additional extracts will be updated at seconddraft.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.


13 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Ural, Erdem A.

I see references to a few 2018 editions. How can the committee vote on extracts potentially subject to change?


14 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 4-NFPA 652-2016 [ New Section after 3.1 ]

3.3.19* Explosible.

Capable of propagating a deflagration when dispersed in air or the process-specific oxidizing media.







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The term explosible is used in this and other NFPA combustible dust standards and a uniform definition should bedeveloped. The annex refers to NFPA 68.

ResponseMessage:

Public Input No. 63-NFPA 652-2016 [New Section after 3.1]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.


15 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


16 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Annex Material for FR‐4

A 3.3.x For dusts, explosibility is determined as described in Section 5.4.3. For hybrid mixtures, see

NFPA 68.

First Revision No. 36-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. 3.3.1.1 ]

3.3.2.1 Enclosureless AMS.

An air-material separator designed to separate the conveying air from the material being conveyed where the filter medium is mediaare not enclosed or in a container.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Corrects typographical error in first revision.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.


17 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Ural, Erdem A.

The ending "not enclosed or in a container" is confusing.


18 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 46-NFPA 652-2016 [ New Section after 3.3.2 ]

3.3.1 Abort Gate/Damper.

A device for the quick diversion of material or air to the exterior of a building or other safe location in the event of a fire.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Adds definition for abort gate. Term is used in the new equipment related material proposed for Chapter 8.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce


19 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Ural, Erdem A.

I would add "or other specified abnormal condition."


20 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


3.3.21 Fire Hazard.

Any situation, process, material, or condition that, on the basis of applicable data , can cause a fire or provide a ready fuel supply toaugment the spread or intensity of a fire and poses a threat to life or property.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Removes, "on the basis of applicable data" in response to a Correlating Committee suggestion based on commentsreceived on the same definition on the 654 SD ballot.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.


21 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


22 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


3.3.24 Fugitive Dusts. (Reserved)

Dust that escapes from equipment and containers.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The technical committee is proposing this new definition for fugitive dust. The term is used in the document and is notcurrently defined.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce


23 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Hansen, Dale C.

We should consider adding "and ducts" to this definition.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Title for the section should be singular "Fugitive Dust"


Ural, Erdem A.

Need to make the title singular. Fugitive dust can also come from rooms and enclosures.


24 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 49-NFPA 652-2016 [ New Section after 3.3.27.2.1 ]

3.3.30 K St .

The deflagration index of a dust cloud. [ 68, 2018]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Adds definition of Kst as it is used throughout the document.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce


25 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


26 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


3.3.39 Separation.

The interposing of distance A hazard management strategy achieved by the establishment of a distance as required by the standardbetween the combustible particulate solid process and other operations that are in the same [compartment] room . [ 654,2013] [ 654: 2017]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update of extracted material from 654 to 2017 edition

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

McLelland, Bruce


27 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Koch, James F.

There should be commas before and after "as required by the standard".

Ural, Erdem A.

replace achieved with implemented. Make solid plural.


28 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


4.2.4* Compliance Options.

The objectives in Section 4.2 shall be achieved deemed to have been met by implementing either of the following means :

(1) A prescriptive approach in accordance with Chapters 5, 7, 8, and 9 in conjunction with any prescriptive provisions ofapplicable commodity-specific NFPA standards

(2) A performance-based approach in accordance with Chapter 6




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision was created to address some of the concerns regarding objectives posed by the submitter of PI-28 and theCorrelating Committee task group on objectives. The term, "deemed to have been meet", was added to imply that theobjectives would be met by implementing the prescriptive requirements or a performance-based approach.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.


29 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Gombar, Robert C.

The language prepared by the Correlating Committee Task Group for the Objectives provisions should have been adopted.


30 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


5.4.2* Determination of Flash-Fire Hazard Potential . (Reserved)







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Change in title of reserved section to reflect more accurately the material that might be added. The committee also addedannex material to reflect the current status of the topic.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.


31 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


32 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Write annex material for 5.4.2 Determination of Flash-Fire Potential. Currently several organizations are in the early stages of developing testing methods to determine the flash-fire potential for combustible dusts. Currently, this document assesses the flash-fire potential to exist concurrently with explosibility, as determined by existing test methods.


5.5.3.2

Samples that could oxidize or degrade in the presence of air shall be maintained in suitable inert gas or vacuum packaging untiltested.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Some materials can oxidize or degrade in air changing their combustibility or explosibility characteristics and should beappropriately preserved between sampling and testing.

ResponseMessage:

Public Input No. 64-NFPA 652-2016 [New Section after 5.5.3]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.


33 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


34 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


6.6 Retained Prescriptive Requirements.

Portions of a facility designed in accordance with this chapter as an alternative for particular prescriptive requirements shall meetall other relevant prescriptive requirements in this standard .

6.6.1

Portions of a facility design in accordance with Chapter 6 shall also meet the following requirements:

Housekeeping in accordance with Section 8.4

PPE in accordance with Section 8.6

Management systems in accordance with Chapter 9




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee is moving the retained prescriptive requirements to Chapter 9, Management Systems so that anyperformance-based design needs to meet the management system requirements in Chapter 9. It addition to the housekeepingrequirements (Section 8.4), and PPE (Section 8.6), Hot Work (Section 8.5.3) is being moved to Chapter 9. Any performancebased design needs to meet all of the Management System requirements in Chapter 9.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.


35 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Gombar, Robert C.

The new language in Sec. 6.6 should end with "shall meet all of the Management Systems requirements in Chapter 9." Because it does not,as written, focus on the requirements in Chapter 9, the new language in Sec. 6.6 is likely to cause confusion in its application.


Ural, Erdem A.

I do not believe the wording is clear enough.


36 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


7.1* General Requirements.

7.1.1 Responsibility.

The owner/operator of a facility where materials that have been determined to be combustible or explosible in accordance withChapter 5 are present in an enclosure shall be responsible to ensure a DHA is completed in accordance with the requirements ofthis chapter.

7.1.2*

The requirements of Chapter 7 this chapter shall apply retroactively in accordance with 7.1.2.1through 7.1.2.3 and 7.1.2.2 .

7.1.2.1

For existing processes and facility compartments that are undergoing material modification, the owner/operator shall completeDHAs as part of the project. A DHA shall be completed for all new processes and facility compartments.

7.1.2.2*

For existing processes and facility compartments that are not undergoing material modification, the owner/operator shall scheduleand complete DHAs of existing processes and facility compartments within a 3-year period from the effective date of the standard. ,a DHA shall be completed by September 7, 2020.

7.1.2.3

For the purposes of applying the provisions of 7.1.2 , material modification shall include modifications or maintenance and repairactivities that exceed 25 percent of the original cost. The owner/operator shall demonstrate reasonable progress in each of the 3years each year in completing DHAs prior to the deadline set in 7.1.2.2 .

7.1.3

For the purposes of applying the provisions of 7.1.2 , material modification shall include modifications or maintenance and repairactivities that exceed 25 percent of the original cost. The absence of previous incidents shall not be used as the basis for notperforming a DHA.

7.1.4

The DHA shall be reviewed and updated at least every 5 years.



Annex_Material_for_FR-38.docx Revised annex material for 7.1.2.2




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee revised this section in response to PI - 38, 39, 58, and 57 on Chapter 7, DHA. In response to input from theCorrelating Committee to align the schedule for DHA implementation with the industry and commodity-specific standards (5years versus 3 years), the committee set the date for completion of all DHA to five years from the effective date of the currentedition of 652 (September 7th, 2020). They clarified the language indicating that a DHA is required for all new processes andfacility compartments. The concept of significant modification triggering a DHA was deleted. By the time this edition of 652 isissues, Industry should be well on their way to implementation. Modifications are covered under the MOC provisions in Chapter9. The committee also added a requirement that the DHA be reviewed and updated every five years. In addition, the committeeemphasized that the absence of previous incidents is not be used as a basis for not performing a DHA.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results



37 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.


Gombar, Robert C.

The new Sec. 7.1.3 regarding the absence of previous incidents is not necessary. The DHA requirement in Chapter 7 is based on adetermination made under Chapter 5, and Sec. 5.2.3 already covers the previous incidents requirement in the new Sec. 7.1.3. Also, given theMOC requirement in Chapter 9, the new Sec. 7.1.4 is not necessary. For the current edition of 652, the Committee voted 31 to 1 to delete the5 year update for DHAs because of the MOC requirement in Chapter 9.

Osborn, Jack E.

we may have to consider coordinating with the commodity standards

Zalosh, Robert G.

Comment on Paragraph 7.1.2.3 I suggest an Annex Paragraph along the following lines be added to give the user an explanation of what isconsidered reasonable progress in meeting the September 7, 2020 deadline for completing a DHA. A.7.1.2.3 Since the last edition deadlinefor completing a DHA was September 7, 2018 (three years from the September 7, 2015 date of issue of NFPA 652-2016), reasonableprogress might consist of the following schedule. • Identification of all FACILITY combustible dusts and pertinent enclosures by September 7,2018. • Initiation of the DHA by a defined project team working on a documented DHA scope of work applicable to the facility and specificcombustible dusts by September 7, 2019. Progress on producing a draft DHA would be a reasonable goal by this time. • Completion of thedraft DHA by April 7, 2019; Review of the draft DHA by June 7, 2019, and completion and dissemination of the revised DHA by September 7,


38 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

2020.


Ural, Erdem A.

I am sorry to see the Technical Committee compromise the safety of the workplace and the public. How can anyone protect them withoutknowing the hazards that will be identified in Dust Hazards Analysis? I am even more disappointed with the Correlating Committee, theinstigator of this irresponsible act.


39 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


A.7.1.2.2

The deadline for completing initial DHAs is 5 years after the effective date of the first edition of

this standard. The first edition allowed only 3 years for completion of all DHAs. This edition

extends this period to 5 years. It is not the intent of this requirement to permit a delay in the

completion of all DHA until the third fifth year.

Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri), 11 pt

Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri), 11 pt


8.1* Inherently Safer Designs. (Reserved)



Annex_Material_for_FR_-39.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee is going to leave this section as reserved. It is setting up a task group for the second draft for development ofadditional annex material. It is also changing the title of the section to Inherently Safer Design. The original title implies anabsolute that cannot be meet (safe design).

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.


40 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Ural, Erdem A.

I would replace "the need to handle combustible dusts" with "or eliminate combustible dust hazards."


41 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


Facilities should consider alternative processes or raw materials that reduce the need to handle

combustible dusts.

First Revision No. 44-NFPA 652-2016 [ New Section after 8.3.3.1.3 ]

8.3.3.1.4 Systems That Convey Hybrid Mixtures.

The percentage of the lower flammable limit (LFL) of flammable vapors and the percentage of the minimum explosibleconcentration (MEC) of combustible dusts, when combined, shall not exceed 25 percent within the airstream, except for systemsprotected in accordance with 8.7.3.2(1) through 8.7.3.2(6) .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Committee generated first revision. Adds requirements from 654 for systems conveying hybrid mixtures.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.


42 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Ural, Erdem A.

We should improve this requirement in the second revision.


43 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 43-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. 8.3.3.1.4.3 ]

8.3.3.1.5.3 Shutdown.

(A)

Pneumatic conveying, dust collection, and centralized vacuum cleaning systems shall be designed such that on , upon normalshutdown of the process, the system maintains design air velocity until material is purged from the system.

(B)

The requirements of 8.3.3.1.5.3(A) 8.3.3.1.5.3(A)8.3.3.1.4.3(A) shall not apply during emergency shutdown of the process, such asby activation of an emergency stop button or by activation of an automatic safety interlocking device.

(C)

Pneumatic Dilute phase pneumatic conveying systems shall be designed such that on , upon restart after an emergency shutdown,residual materials can be cleared and design air velocity can be achieved prior to admission of new material .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Committee generated first revision clarifying the requirements for shutdown of pneumatic conveying system.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.


44 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


45 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


8.3.3.3* Specific Requirements for Dust Collection Systems.

8.3.3.3.1*

At each collection point, the system shall be designed to achieve the minimum velocity required for capture, control, andcontainment of the dust source.

8.3.3.3.2*

The hood or pickup point for each dust source shall have a documented minimum air volume flow based upon the system design.

8.3.3.3.3*

Branch lines shall not be disconnected, and unused portions of the system shall not be blanked off without providing a means tomaintain required and balanced airflow.

8.3.3.3.4*

The addition of branch lines shall not be made to an existing system without first confirming that the entire system will maintain therequired and balanced airflow.

8.3.3.3.5*

Dust collection systems that remove material from operations that generate flames, sparks, or hot material under normal operatingconditions shall not be interconnected with dust collection systems that transport combustible particulate solids or hybrid mixtures.(See 8.7.4 8.7.48.7.48.7.48.7.48.7.48.9.4 .)

8.3.3.3.6*

The air-material separator (AMS) selected for the system shall be designed to allow for the characteristics of the combustible dustbeing separated from the air or gas flow.

8.3.3.3.7*

Air-moving devices (AMDs) shall be of appropriate type and sufficient capacity to maintain the required rate of air flow in all parts ofthe system.

8.3.3.3.8*

Control equipment controlling the operation of the AMS shall be installed in a location that is safe from the effects of a deflagration inthe AMS.







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Energy requirement for dust systems are significant and often the single largest power consumer in a facility. Multiple tests hasshown that the actual demand for vacuum is often in the 20 to 30% of full open design flows. With new technology it is nowpossible via a control system to manage where vacuum is needed and at the same time assure that minimum design velocitiesare maintained to prevent accumulation of dust in the ducting and also maintain minimum design flows at each drop.

The committee is adding annex material to this section that describes variable speed fans and automated dampers.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results



46 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Osborn, Jack E.

the statement about 20 and 30% is incorrect. I have reviewed over 1,500 systems in my lifetime and the statement is incorrect. Justification iswrong. This method will be used rarely and should not be confused with correct balanced-by-design methodology. But, if they want to spendthe money it may work (or may not).


47 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Additional Annex Text for FR‐40 –

To be added to the end of the current annex material for 8.3.3.3

Systems have been introduced to incorporate variable speed fans and automated dampers in dust

collection systems serving multiple points of use. These systems can reduce energy use by closing

unused branch ducts and reducing fan speed while still maintaining design velocities throughout the

system. Proper design of these systems is essential to ensure that reliable operation will be achieved

under all use conditions. These systems use smaller diameter main ducts to allow for adequate

conveying velocity to be maintained under normal use conditions. For use as an add‐on to existing dust

collection systems the duct system should be redesigned to comply with the requirements of this

section. At full use, the smaller main ducts can produce significant pressure drop, and so the fan should

be sized appropriately to accommodate both minimum and maximum use conditions. The design

should include the following elements, at a minimum:

1. The design should specify the required air volume for each point of use and the minimum

velocity for each branch line and duct section between the points of use and the AMS.

2. Monitoring systems should be provided at each drop/branch duct to assure minimum design

airflow is maintained when the branch is open.

3. The design should ensure that the required velocity is maintained in all open branches and all

duct sections under all use conditions.

4. The controller should automatically open additional points of use or balance air dampers as

necessary to always maintain minimum air velocity in all sub branches and the main duct.

5. At startup all gates should be open.

6. The fan package and AMS used in the system should be compatible with the full performance

requirements of the system (all sources open to minimum sources open). Improper selection of

these items can result in failure to maintain the required duct velocities.

7. Alarms should be provided to alert the appropriate personnel when the system fails to provide

the required performance.

First Revision No. 50-NFPA 652-2016 [ New Section after 8.3.5.3 ]

8.3.4.4 AMS Construction .

8.3.4.4.1

AMSs shall be constructed of noncombustible materials.

8.3.4.4.2

Filter media and filter media support frames shall be permitted to be constructed of combustible material.

8.3.4.4.3

Where isolated from an AMS by a valve, portable containers intended to receive materials discharged from the AMS shall bepermitted to be constructed of combustible material.

8.3.4.4.4

AMSs shall be constructed to minimize internal ledges or other points of dust accumulation.

8.3.4.4.5

Hopper bottoms shall be sloped and the discharge conveying system shall be designed to handle the maximum material flowattainable from the system.

8.3.4.4.6

Where provided to permit inspection, cleaning, and maintenance, access doors and access openings shall meet the followingrequirements:

(1) They shall be designed to prevent dust leaks.

(2) They shall be permitted to be used as deflagration vents if they are specifically designed for both purposes.

(3) They shall be bonded and grounded.

(4)

8.3.5 Air-Moving Devices (Fans and Blowers).

8.3.5.1

Air-moving devices (AMDs) shall conform to the requirements of NFPA 91 , except as amended by the requirements of thischapter.

8.3.5.2

Where an explosion hazard exists, systems shall be designed in such a manner that combustible particulate solids do not passthrough an AMD.

8.3.5.3*

The requirement of 8.3.5.2 shall not apply to systems protected by an approved explosion prevention or isolation system toprevent the propagation of the flame front from the fan to other equipment in accordance with 8.7.3.2(1) , 8.7.3.2(5) , or8.7.3.2(6) or 8.7.4 .

8.3.5.4*

Where an AMD is located in the dirty air stream and the dust/air stream concentration is higher than 10 percent of the MEC, fansand blowers shall be of Type A or Type B spark-resistant construction per AMCA 99-0401-86, Classification for Spark ResistantConstruction , or Type C spark-resistant construction protected with spark detection and extinguishment located downstream ofthe fan.

8.3.6 Duct Systems.

8.3.6.1

Ducts that handle combustible particulate solids shall conform to the requirements of NFPA 91 , except as amended by therequirements of this chapter.

8.3.6.2*

Changes in duct sizes shall be designed to prevent the accumulation of material by utilizing a tapered transformation piece, withthe included angle of the taper not more than 30 degrees.

8.3.6.3*

When ducts pass through a physical barrier erected to segregate dust deflagration hazards, physical isolation protection shall beprovided to prevent propagation of deflagrations between segregated spaces.

8.3.6.3.1

Access doors, openings, or removable sections of ductwork shall be provided to allow inspection, cleaning, maintenance, and firedepartment access.

* If not designed to be used as deflagration vents, they shall be designed to the same strength as the AMS.


48 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

8.3.6.3.2

Access doors, openings, or removable sections of ductwork shall be designed and maintained to prevent dust leaks and preservethe integrity of the duct.

8.3.6.3.3

Access doors, openings, or removable sections of ductwork that are not specifically designed for deflagration venting shall not beconsidered as providing that function.

8.3.6.3.4

Access doors, openings, or removable sections of ductwork shall be bonded and grounded.

8.3.7 Sight Glasses.

8.3.7.1

Sight glasses shall be of a material that is impact and erosion-resistant.

8.3.7.2

Sight glass assemblies shall have a pressure rating equal to or greater than that of the ductwork.

8.3.7.3

Ductwork shall be supported on each side of the sight glass so that the sight glass does not carry any of the system weight and isnot subject to stress or strain.

8.3.7.4

The mechanical strength of the sight glass–mounting mechanism shall be equal to the adjoining ductwork.

8.3.7.5

The inside diameter of a sight glass shall not cause a restriction of flow.

8.3.7.6

The connections between the sight glass and the ductwork shall be squarely butted and sealed so as to be both airtight anddusttight.

8.3.7.7

The electrical bonding across the length of the sight glass shall be continuous and have a resistance of no more than 1 ohm.

8.3.8 Abort Gates/Dampers.

8.3.8.1 Construction.

8.3.8.1.1

Abort gates and abort dampers shall be constructed of noncombustible materials.

8.3.8.1.2

Abort gates and abort dampers shall be actuated by spark detection or equivalent automatic detection in the duct or pipe upstreamof the device.

8.3.8.1.3

The detection system and abort gate shall respond to prevent sparks, glowing embers, or burning materials from passing beyondthe abort gate.

8.3.8.1.4

The abort gate or abort damper shall be installed so that it diverts airflow to a restricted area to safely discharge combustiongases, flames, burning solids, or process gases or fumes.

8.3.8.2 Manual Reset.

8.3.8.2.1

An abort gate or abort damper shall be provided with a manually activated reset located proximate to the device such that,subsequent to operation, it can be returned to the normal operating position at the damper/gate.

8.3.8.2.2

Automatic or remote reset provisions shall not be permitted.

8.3.8.3 Integrity of Actuation Circuits.

8.3.8.3.1

All fire protection abort gates or abort dampers shall be connected to the fire detection control panel via Class A or Class D circuitsas described in NFPA 72 .

8.3.8.3.2

When the abort gate is connected via a Class A circuit, supervision shall include the continuity of the abort gate or abort damperreleasing device, whether that device is a solenoid coil, a detonator (explosive device) filament, or other such device.

8.3.9 Bulk Storage Enclosures.

8.3.9.1 General.


49 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

8.3.9.1.1

For the purposes of this section, bulk storage enclosures shall include items such as bins, tanks, hoppers, and silos.

8.3.9.1.2*

The requirements of this section shall not apply to containers that are used for transportation of the material.

8.3.9.2* Construction.

Bulk storage enclosures, whether located inside or outside of buildings, shall be constructed so as not to represent an increase inthe fire load beyond the capabilities of the existing fire protection.

8.3.9.3 Fixed Bulk Storage Location.

8.3.9.3.1

Where an explosion hazard exists, fixed bulk storage enclosures shall be located outside of buildings.

8.3.9.3.2

Fixed bulk storage enclosures shall be permitted to be located inside buildings where one of the following applies:

(1) Fixed bulk storage enclosures are protected in accordance with 8.7.3 .

(2)

8.3.9.4* Interior Surfaces.

Interior surfaces shall be designed and constructed to facilitate cleaning and to minimize combustible dust accumulation.

8.3.9.5 Access Doors and Access Openings.

Where provided to permit inspection, cleaning, and maintenance, access doors and access openings shall meet the followingrequirements:

(1) They shall be designed to prevent dust leaks.

(2) They shall be permitted to be used as deflagration vents if they are specifically designed for both purposes.

(3) They shall be bonded and grounded.

(4) If not designed to be used as deflagration vents, they shall be designed to the same strength as the AMS.

8.3.10* Size Reduction.

Before material is processed by size reduction equipment, foreign materials shall be excluded or removed as required by 8.4.12 .

8.3.11* Particle Size Separation.

8.3.11.1

Particle separation devices shall be designed to control fugitive dust emissions per Section 8.6 .

8.3.11.2

Flexible connectors shall be in conformance with 8.4.7.1.4 .

8.3.12 Pressure Protection Systems.

8.3.12.1 Vacuum Breakers.

Vacuum breakers shall be installed on negative-pressure systems if the enclosure is not designed for the maximum vacuumattainable.

8.3.12.2 Pressure Relief Devices.

8.3.12.2.1

Pressure relief devices for relief of pneumatic overpressure shall be installed on positive-pressure systems.

8.3.12.2.2

The requirement of 8.3.12.2.1 shall not apply to systems that are designed for a gauge pressure of less than 15 psi (103 kPa)and are provided with safety interlocks designed to prevent overpressure in accordance with ISA 84.00.01, Functional Safety:Application of Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industry Sector .

8.3.12.2.3

The requirement of 8.3.12.2.1 shall not apply to systems that are designed for a gauge pressure of less than 15 psi (103 kPa)and are capable of containing the maximum pressure attainable.

8.3.12.2.4*

Pressure relief devices shall not be vented to an area where a dust explosion hazard or dust flash-fire hazard exists, as specifiedby Section 6.1 of NFPA 654 .

8.3.12.3 Airflow Control Valves.

* Fixed bulk storage enclosures are less than 8 ft 3 (0.2 m 3 ).


50 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

8.3.12.3.1

Airflow control valves that are installed in pneumatic conveying, dust collection, or centralized vacuum cleaning systems shallprovide a tight shutoff.

8.3.12.3.2

Airflow control valves shall be sized to allow passage of the design airflow when the valve is fully open.

8.3.12.3.3

The position of airflow control valves shall be visually indicated.

8.3.12.3.4

Manually adjusted airflow control valves, dampers, or gates, shall have a means of being secured so as to prevent subsequentadjustment or manipulation once the system is set.

8.3.12.3.5

Diverter valves shall effect a positive diversion of the material and shall mechanically seal all other directions from air or materialleakage.

8.3.13 Material Feeding Devices.

8.3.13.1 Mechanical Feeding Devices.

8.3.13.1.1

Mechanical feeding devices shall be equipped with a shear pin or overload detection device and alarm.

8.3.13.1.2

The alarm shall sound at the operator control station.

8.3.13.2 Drives.

8.3.13.2.1

All drives used in conjunction with feeders, air locks, and other material feeding devices shall be directly connected.

8.3.13.2.2

Belt, chain and sprocket, or other indirect drives that are designed to stall the driving forces without slipping and to provide for theremoval of static electric charges shall be permitted to be used.

8.3.14* Bucket Elevators.

8.3.14.1

Elevator casings, head and boot sections, and connecting ducts shall be designed to control fugitive dust emissions and shall beconstructed of noncombustible materials.

8.3.14.2

Where provided, inlet and discharge hoppers shall be designed to be accessible for cleaning and inspection.

8.3.14.3 Power Cutoff.

8.3.14.3.1

Each leg shall be provided with a speed sensor device that will cut off the power to the drive motor and actuate an alarm in theevent the leg belt slows to 80 percent of normal operating speed.

8.3.14.3.2

Feed to the elevator leg by mechanical means shall be stopped or diverted.

8.3.14.4 Belts.

8.3.14.4.1*

Belt-driven bucket elevators shall have nonslip material (lagging) installed on the head pulley to minimize slippage.

8.3.14.4.2*

Belts and lagging shall be fire and oil resistant.

8.3.14.4.3

No bearings shall be located in the bucket elevator casing.

8.3.14.4.4*

Head and boot sections shall be provided with openings to allow for cleanout, inspection, and alignment of the pulley and belt.

8.3.14.5 Drive.

8.3.14.5.1*

The bucket elevator shall be driven by a motor and drive train that is capable of handling the full-rated capacity of the elevatorwithout overloading.

8.3.14.5.2

The drive shall be capable of starting the unchoked elevator under full (100 percent) load.

8.3.14.6 Monitors.


51 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

8.3.14.6.1

Elevators shall have monitors at head and tail pulleys that indicate high bearing temperature, vibration detection, head pulleyalignment, and belt alignment.

8.3.14.6.2

Abnormal conditions shall actuate an alarm requiring corrective action.

8.3.14.6.3

The alarm specified in 8.3.14.6.2 shall sound at the operator control station.

8.3.14.7 Emergency Controls.

8.3.14.7.1

All bins into which material is directly discharged from the bucket elevator and that are not designed with automatic overflowsystems shall be equipped with devices to shut down equipment or with high-level indicating devices with visual or audible alarms.

8.3.14.7.2

The audible alarm specified in 8.3.14.7.1 shall sound at the operator control station.

8.3.15* Enclosed Conveyors.

8.3.15.1 Housing and Coverings.

8.3.15.1.1

Housings for enclosed conveyors (e.g., screw conveyors and drag conveyors) shall be of metal construction and designed toprevent escape of combustible dusts.

8.3.15.1.1.1

Flexible screw conveyors utilizing nonmetal housing shall be permitted to be used, provided the requirements of 8.4.7.1.2 aremet.

8.3.15.1.2

Coverings on cleanout, inspection, and other openings shall be fastened to prevent the escape of combustible dusts.

8.3.15.2 Power Shutoff.

8.3.15.2.1*

All conveyors shall be equipped with a device that shuts off the power to the drive motor and sounds an alarm in the event theconveyor plugs.

8.3.15.2.2

The alarm specified in 8.3.15.2.1 shall sound at the operator control station, and feed to the conveyor shall be stopped ordiverted.

8.3.16 Mixers and Blenders.

8.3.16.1

Mixers and blenders shall be designed to control fugitive dust emissions.

8.3.16.2

Foreign materials shall be excluded or removed as required by 8.4.12 .

8.3.16.3

Mixers and blenders shall be made of metal, other noncombustible material, or material that does not represent an increased fireload beyond the capabilities of the existing fire protection.

Global FR-45

8.3.17* Dryers.

8.3.17.1 Drying Media.

8.3.17.1.1

Drying media that come into contact with material being processed shall not be recycled to rooms or buildings.

8.3.17.1.2

Drying media shall be permitted to be recycled to the drying process provided the following conditions are met:

(1) The media passes through a filter, dust separator, or equivalent means of dust removal.

(2) The vapor flammability of the drying media in the dryer is controlled by either oxidant concentration reduction or combustibleconcentration reduction in accordance with NFPA 69.

8.3.17.1.3

Dryers shall be constructed of noncombustible materials.

8.3.17.1.4

Interior surfaces of dryers shall be designed so that accumulations of material are minimized and cleaning is facilitated.


52 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

8.3.17.1.5

Access doors or openings shall be provided in all parts of the dryer and connecting conveyors to permit inspection, cleaning,maintenance, and the effective use of portable extinguishers or hose streams.

8.3.17.1.6

Heated dryers shall comply with NFPA 86.

8.3.17.1.7*

Heated dryers shall have operating controls arranged to maintain the temperature of the drying chamber within the prescribedlimits.

8.3.17.1.8

Heated dryers and their auxiliary equipment shall be equipped with separate excess-temperature-limit controls, independent of theoperating controls, arranged to supervise the following:

(1) Heated air supply to the drying chamber

(2) Airstream at the discharge of the drying chamber







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The technical committee is adding this equipment related material to Chapter 8. Much of the material is from NFPA 654,with edits and revisions. This section contains the fundamental requirements for process equipment for combustible dust.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice


53 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.


Cholin, John M.

Section 8.3.5.4 contains restriction where the air stream is at 10% of MEC whereas NFPA 69 permits the use of concentration control forexplosion hazard management up to 25% of MEC. What is the justification for a more stringent concentration criterion?

Zalosh, Robert G.

Please check section 8.3.11.1 reference to fugitive dust control; now referenced as paragraph 8.6, but may be in Chapter 9 on Dust Control.


Norris, Jim E.

I feel the word "or" should be inserted in 8.3.14.6.1 between high bearing temperature and vibration detection as below. This is consistentwith other standards (e.g. NFPA 61, and vibration detection may not work for all bucket elevator applications. Elevators shall have monitors athead and tail pulleys that indicate high bearing temperature "OR" vibration detection, head pulley alignment, and belt alignment.

Ural, Erdem A.

Must add: Where an explosion hazard exists, bucket elevators shall be protected in accordance with NFPA 68 and NFPA 69.


54 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


A.8.3.4.4.6.4 See NFPA 68 A.8.3.5.3 These systems include pneumatic conveying systems that require relay (booster) fans and product dryers where the fan is an integral part of the dryer. A.8.3.5.4 The production of mechanical sparks is only one possible ignition mechanism from a fan or blower. Frictional heat due to contact between moving parts (misalignment) or bearing failure can present an ignition source both in the fan and downstream. Additionally, these failure mechanisms can result in a decrease in airflow through the AMD, which can result in an increase in the combustible dust concentration coincident with the creation of an ignition source. A. 8.3.6.2 Whenever a duct size changes, the cross‐sectional area changes as well. This change in area

causes a change in air velocity in the region of the change, introducing turbulence effects. The net result

is that a transition (often called a reducer) with an included angle of more than 30 degrees represents a

choke when the direction of flow is from large to small and results in localized heating and static electric

charge accumulation. When the transition is from small to large, the air velocity drop at the transition is

usually enough to cause product accumulation at the transition and the existence of a volume where the

concentration of combustible is above the MEC. It is strongly desirable that both situations be avoided.

A.8.3.6.3 Isolation devices in accordance with 8.9.4 are provided to prevent deflagration propagation

between connected equipment. According to 8.9.4, additional protection is indicated when the integrity

of a physical barrier could be breached through ductwork failure caused by a deflagration outside the

equipment. In some cases, a single equipment isolation device can provide protection in both scenarios

if that isolation device is installed at the physical barrier. In other cases, this concern can be addressed

by strengthening the duct and supports to preclude failure.

A.8.3.9.1.2 Shipping containers can pose a deflagration hazard; however, deflagration protection

measures for these units are not always practical. Consideration should be given to deflagration hazards

when electing to omit deflagration protection.

A.8.3.9.2 Historically, 8.3.9.2 required that the fixed bulk storage enclosure be constructed of

noncombustible materials, which usually meant a metallic material. However, there are some

particulates that represent a serious corrosion threat or where contamination from the materials of

construction introduces product quality issues, therefore nonmetallic construction is required. The

materials of construction for a bulk storage enclosure should not increase the fire protection challenge.

A.8.3.9.3.2 (2) Small containers can pose an explosion hazard; however, explosion protection measures for these units are not always practicable. Consideration should be given to explosion hazards when electing to omit protection. A.8.3.9.4 Horizontal projections can have the tops sharply sloped to minimize the deposit of dust

thereon. Efforts should be made to minimize the amount of surfaces where dust can accumulate.

A.8.3.10 Size reduction machinery includes equipment such as mills, grinders, and pulverizers.

A.8.3.11 Particle separation devices include screens, sieves, aspirators, pneumatic separators, sifters,

and similar devices.

A.8.3.12.2.4 High‐momentum discharges from relief valves within buildings can disturb dust layers, creating combustible clouds of dust. A.8.3.14 It is recommended that bucket elevators be located outside of buildings whenever practicable.

A.8.3.14.3.1 Belt alignment monitoring devices are recommended for all elevator legs. Bearing

monitoring systems are recommended for head, tail, and bend (knee) pulley bearings on elevator legs.

A.8.3.14.4.2 Where conductive buckets are used on nonconductive belts, bonding and grounding should be considered to reduce the hazards of static electricity accumulation. See NFPA 77 for more information.

A.8.3.14.4.4 Where it is desired to prevent propagation of an explosion from the elevator leg to another part of the facility, an explosion isolation system should be provided at the head, boot, or both locations. A. 8.3.14.5.1 The motor selected should not be larger than the smallest standard motor capable of

meeting this requirement.

A. 8.3.15 Explosion protection should be provided when the risk is significant. Where coverings are

provided on cleanout, inspection, or other openings, they should be designed to withstand the expected

deflagration pressure.

A. 8.3.15.2.1 Explosion protection should be provided when the risk is significant. Where coverings are



A.8.3.17 Explosion protection should be provided when the risk is significant. Where coverings are



A.8.2.17.1.7 The maximum safe operating temperature of a dryer is a function of the time–temperature ignition characteristics of the particulate solid being dried as well as of the dryer type. For short time exposures of the material to the heating zone, the operating temperatures of the dryer can approach the dust cloud ignition temperature. However, if particulate solids accumulate on the dryer surfaces, the operating temperature should be maintained below the dust layer ignition temperature. The dust layer ignition temperature is a function of time, temperature, and the thickness of the layer. It can be several hundred degrees below the dust cloud ignition temperature. The operating temperature limit of the dryer should be based on an engineering evaluation, taking into consideration the preceding factors. The dust cloud ignition temperature can be determined by the method referenced in U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8798, “Thermal and Electrical Ignitability of Dusts” (modified Godbert‐Greenwald furnace, BAM furnace, or other methods). The dust layer ignition temperature can be determined by the U.S. Bureau of Mines test procedure given in Lazzara and Miron, “Hot Surface Ignition Temperatures of Dust Layers.”

First Revision No. 10-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. 8.4.2.2.1 ]

9.4.2.2.1*


(1) Materials of construction shall comply with 8.4.7.18.4.6.18.4.7.1 8.4.7.18.4.6.1 .



(4) Dust laden air shall not pass through the fan or blower. The fan or blower shall be on the clean side of the primary filtrationmedia or wet separation chamber.

(5) Electrical motors shall not be in the dust laden air stream located on the dirty side of the primary filtration media or wetseparation chamber unless listed for Class II, Division 1, locations.

(6)





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee made changes to avoid the use of the term, "dust laden air", which is not well defined. The committeedeclined to require that all electric motors be NRTL certified.

ResponseMessage:

Public Input No. 51-NFPA 652-2016 [Section No. 8.4.2.2.1]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice



55 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


56 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 11-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. 8.4.2.2.3 ]

9.4.2.2.3

Where flammable vapors or gases are present in Class II areas , vacuum cleaners shall be listed for both Class I and Class IIhazardous locations.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: This clarifies the original intent of the requirement. It refers to Class II areas where flammable gases are present.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.


57 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


58 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


9.5.1*

All In addition to the requirements of NFPA 51B , all hot work activities shall comply with the requirements in 9.5.2 through 9.5.5 .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Clarifies the relationship between NFPA 51B and the requirements for hot work in NFPA 652

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce


59 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


60 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


9.5.6

Use of portable electrical equipment that does not comply with the electrical classification of the area where it is to be used shall beauthorized and controlled in accordance with the hot work procedure as outlined in Section 9.5 .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Adds material about portable electrical equipment. This section was previously reserved.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce


61 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Hansen, Dale C.

In lieu of the hot work permit, this should really be modified to state that it will be allowed only under a safe work permit system.

Ural, Erdem A.

Wording can be improved.


Reason, Jason P.

The use of unapproved portable electrical equipment in a Class II hazardous location is prohibited by OSHA's electrical standard (29 CFR1910 Subpart S, 1910.307). As written, this new section directly contradicts these Federal and State OSHA standards. The use of unapprovedportable electrical equipment in a Class II hazardous location is also prohibited by OSHA's Permit-Required Confined Space (PRCS) standard(29 CFR 1910.146). Because most of the dust-handling process equipment (dust collectors, dryers, etc.) may be classified as PRCSs,allowing unapproved portable electrical equipment may also contradict 1910.146. Finally, the use of unapproved portable electrical equipmentis already covered by other consensus standards such as ANSI's Recommended Practice for Portable Electronic Products Suitable for Use inClass I and II, Division 2, Class I Zone 2 and Class III, Division 1 and 2 Hazardous (Classified) Locations. The language as written for thisnew section contradicts these standards and could lead to potential OSHA citations and misunderstanding of potential sources of ignition(especially during confined space entries).


62 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


8.4.5.2*

Bearings that are directly exposed to a combustible dust atmosphere or that are subject to dust accumulation, either of which posesa deflagration dust ignition hazard, shall be monitored for overheating.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The type of bearing does not matter, this requirement applies to all bearings that are exposed to dust. The committeechanged the term deflagration hazard to dust-ignition hazard to more specifically define the risk.

ResponseMessage:

Public Input No. 35-NFPA 652-2016 [Section No. 8.5.5.2]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.


63 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


64 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


8.4.6.4*

Preventive maintenance programs for electrical equipment and wiring in Class II and Class III locations shall include provisions toverify that dusttight electrical enclosures are not experiencing significant visible dust ingress accumulation .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The committee agrees that the use of significant is vague and unenforceable. The term was changed to visible.

Response Message:

Public Input No. 17-NFPA 652-2016 [Section No. 8.5.6.4]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.


65 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Frank, Walter L.

I recall that our concern was with dust accumulation inside the enclosure. As worded, the proposed change does not make this distinction. Itcould just as easily be interpreted to mean accumulation on the exterior surfaces of the enclosure. The wording is too ambiguous to approve.

Ural, Erdem A.

I find Mr. Frank's negative persuasive.


66 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


8.6.3* Fans to Limit Accumulation. (Reserved) Fans for Continuous Dust Control.

It shall be permitted to install and use fans to limit dust accumulation in elevated areas that are otherwise difficult to reach forhousekeeping.

8.6.3.1

Fans shall be appropriate for the electrical classification in the areas where they are used.

8.6.3.2

Fans shall be provided in sufficient numbers and locations as required to keep the target areas free of dust accumulations.

8.6.3.3

Fans shall be in operation whenever the equipment generating the dusts is in operation.

8.6.3.4

Fans shall be interlocked to automatically shut down in the event of sprinkler system operation.

8.6.3.5

Dust dispersed by the fans shall not create an explosible dust cloud.

8.6.3.6

The location and range of motion of the fans shall be designed to prevent flow impingement on floors or open equipmentcontaining entrainable dust.

8.6.3.7

Areas that will be swept by the fans shall be free of dust accumulations prior to placing the fans in operation and after everyshutdown.

8.6.3.8*

These fans shall be used in conjunction with the housekeeping program to remove dust from the facility.

8.6.3.9*

Concealed spaces, such as areas above suspended ceilings, shall be sealed to prevent dust accumulation.

8.6.3.10

These systems shall not be used where areas above suspended ceilings are used as return air plenums for HVAC systems.

8.6.3.11

Periodic inspections shall be performed to ensure that dust accumulations are maintained below the threshold dust layerthicknesses determined in 9.4.6 .



Annex_material_for_FR-41.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Aug 12 14:55:15 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The committee has added requirements for fans used to limit accumulation. This section is no longer reserved.

Response Message:


Ballot Results


67 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Frank, Walter L.

The relevance of 8.6.3.9 and 8.6.3.10 to this topic is unclear.

Hansen, Dale C.

The requirement of 8.6.3.3 that the fans must remain in operation at all times that the dust producing equipment is in operation fails toaccount for the possibility that the dust emissions from the equipment may be low and only allow for hazardous accumulations over time. Therequirement to leave the fans running, in this case, becomes a large waste of energy which will only be a deterrent for owners/operators frominstalling these fans as a dust management measure. Rather than forcing the use of the performance-based or risk-assessment approaches,the standard should allow in the body of the text for the owner/operator to establish the frequency of fan operation based on a hazard analysisof dust accumulation rate, to guarantee that a combustible dust cloud will not be generated

Ural, Erdem A.

One should also check for dust accumulations on the fans and their supports.


68 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Annex material for FR-41 A.8.8.3 These devices are used to continuously dislodge dust from hard to reach building surfaces such as roof structural members, lighting, and elevated ductwork. The fans used typically rotate through a 360o arc and oscillate up and down to keep dust from the surfaces within the reach of the fan discharge. Large rooms require multiple fans for adequate coverage. These systems are most effective for facilities with high ceilings where light, easily entrained dusts or fibers are handled. A.8.8.3.8 These systems are intended to reduce the housekeeping burden on elevated surfaces. However, they do not remove dust from the facility. The material is simply relocated to lower surfaces where it is easier to clean using standard housekeeping procedures. These systems may increase the required housekeeping frequency on lower surfaces, and may increase the amount of dust carried into the building HVAC system. A.8.8.3.9 These systems should not be used where they can relocate dust into concealed spaces where the dust can accumulate and pose a deflagration hazard.


8.7.4 Equipment Isolation.

8.7.4.1*

Where a dust explosion hazard exists, isolation devices shall be provided to prevent deflagration propagation between connectedequipment in accordance with NFPA 69.

8.9.4.2

The requirement of 8.9.4.1 shall not apply where all the following conditions are met:

The material being conveyed is not a metal dust or hybrid mixture.

The connecting ductwork is smaller than 4 in. (100 mm) nominal diameter.

The maximum concentration of dust conveyed through the duct is less than 25 percent of the MEC of the material.

The conveying velocity is sufficient to prevent accumulation of combustible dust in the duct.

All connected equipment is properly designed for explosion protection by means other than deflagration pressurecontainment.

8.7.4.2

Isolation devices shall not be required where oxidant concentration has been reduced or where the dust has been renderednoncombustible in accordance with 8.7.3.2(1) or 8.7.3.2(6).

8.7.4.3 Isolation of Upstream Work Areas.

Where a dust explosion hazard exists, isolation devices shall be provided to prevent deflagration propagation from equipmentthrough upstream ductwork to the work areas in accordance with NFPA 69.







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee has deleted section 8.9.4.2 and added the material as annex material for 8.9.4.1 Research has shown thatflame propagation, although less likely, can occur under all of these conditions and that these systems should not be exemptfrom the requirements of 8.9.4.1. Additional material has been added to the annex for 8.9.4.1.

This change is being made to be consistent with the changes made to NFPA 654 during the last revision cycle for the 2017edition.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



69 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.


Zalosh, Robert G.

I suggest the last paragraph of Annex paragraph A.8.9.4 be revised as follows. Factors for evaluation of isolation between equipment andwork areas include, among others, the anticipated Pred for the related process equipment, the diameter and length of the connecting air duct,the Kst of the dust, and the quantity of dust in the work area that can be entrained by a pressure pulse from a deflagration in the relatedprocess equipment. Zalosh and Greenfield (2014) have shown that the probability of propagation decreases exponentially with increasingvalues of the parameter L/((Kst-Kmin)(d-dmin)) , where L is the duct or pipe length between equipment, d is the duct or pipe diameter, Kmin isthe minimum Kst required for propagration in short pipes (configuration dependent), and dmin is the minimum diameter for propagation inshort pipes (depends on Pred). Reference: R. Zalosh and W. Greenfield, “A probabilistic approach to dust explosion propagation hazardevaluations,” Tenth International Symposium on Hazards, Prevention, and Mitigation of Industrial Explosions Bergen, Norway, 10-14 June2014.


Hansen, Dale C.

There are several reasons I am voting against this proposed first revision, as follows: 1. The proposed change and its "justification" was notdistributed to committee members as part of the meeting agenda items prior to the meeting; in fact it wasn't distributed to the committee at allbefore or during the meeting. The proposal was brought forward on the last day of the committee meeting as one of the very last discussionitems before adjourning, when most committee members were more interested in catching a flight than giving this change the thoughtful


70 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

consideration it needed. The excuse was that the presentation was already made and accepted by the 654 committee, so we should just getin line with their decision without the opportunity to review or consider whether the justification merits the changes proposed. 2. The proposaland "justification" presentation is blatantly self-serving to the proponent (Fike), who stands to make a lot of profit on the requirement which willrequire the installation of equipment that they offer for sale. 3. The presentation slide deck used to sell this proposed change to the 654committee was only made available to our committee after the first draft meeting adjourned. This did not give the 652 committee time toreview and consider the arguments made or to determine whether the arguments were factual or had the wide-spread applicability that wasinferred. Therefore, we didn’t even have the opportunity to properly debate the merits of the proposal. Furthermore, the 652 committee did nothave the benefit of having this material presented in person where questions and doubts could be expressed by the committee members andaddressed/defended by the proponent. We were simply asked to take the VERY LIMITED information provided in the presentation as thetruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 4. The research studies that were used to support the argument that the exceptions allowedby the existing 8.9.4.2 should be stricken do not tell the whole story and, in my opinion, tell a misleading story. The information presentedlargely represents a single case--that of connecting ducts and vessels that are DOWNSTREAM of the ignition location, and ignores the casethat, in my experience, is much more common in industry—the need for explosion isolation on the inlet of an explosion protected vessel toprevent propagation upstream opposing the direction of air/material flow. 5. The presentation concludes that “there is no experimentalevidence” to support the exceptions offered in the existing 8.9.4.2. The proponent must therefore be unaware of the work on this topiccompleted by Lunn and the HSE in the UK, who concluded that propagation was unlikely when the connecting pipe is less than 0.1 m, orVogl’s work that observed after many trials that no flame propagation against the conveying direction was observed for wheat flour (Kst = 114)in pipes less than 150 mm in diameter and for Lycopodium (Kst = 154) in pipes less than 100 mm. I strongly oppose the way this proposalwas brought forward to the committee as well as the timing of it at the committee meeting and feel the proposal should be rejected outright onthese two factors alone—notwithstanding the technical bias and self-serving nature of the proposal for the proponent.


71 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Annex Material for SR – 60

A.8.9.4.1

The requirement of 8.9.4.1 might not be applicable where all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The material being conveyed is not a metal dust, ST-3 dust (KSt > 300 bar-m/s),or hybrid mixture.

(2) The connecting ductwork is smaller than 4 in. (100 mm) nominal diameter and greater than 15 ft (5

m) in length.

(3) The conveying velocity is sufficient to prevent accumulation of combustible dust in the duct.

(4) All connected equipment is properly designed for explosion protection by means other than

deflagration pressure containment.

(5) The upstream work areas do not contain large quantities of dust that can be entrained by a pressure

pulse from an explosion in the AMS. When managing the hazard of propagation via small duct one can develop performance equivalent

alternative in accordance with Chapter 6.

Flame spread via propagation inside ducting or piping is somewhat unpredictable for dusts. Tests have

shown that propagation is much less likely under certain conditions. Piping less than 4 in. (100 mm) in

diameter is less likely to provide a conduit for flame spread than larger diameter piping, although

experiments have shown propagation in still smaller diameter piping.

FSA conducted flame propagation tests in a system comprising two interconnected, vented 1 m3 vessels.

Experiments were carried out with pipe diameters of 27 mm, 42 mm, 82 mm (all less than 4 in.). Corn

starch (Kst = 200 bar.m/s) and wheat flour (Kst ~ 100 bar.m/s) were used as fuels. Even with a small

pipe diameter of 27 mm and with wheat flour (Kst ~ 100 bar.m/s) used as test dust, there was a flame

propagation through a pipe length of at least 12 m in length.

For interconnected vessels that are relatively close together, measures to reduce Pred for each

interconnected vessel, taking into account that propagation could occur, would eliminate the need for

isolation techniques.

Dense phase pneumatic transfer [air velocities down near 600 fpm (183 m/min), and solids loading

ratios greater than 30] is also much less likely to provide a conduit for flame spread propagation than for

dilute phase pneumatic transfer [air velocities in the region of 2200 fpm to3600 fpm (672 m/min to 1098

m/min), and solids loading ratios not greater than 15]. It has been reported by Pineau that it is not

uncommon for propagation to occur as little few as one time in ten in controlled experiments for 5.9 in.

(150 mm) piping even for dilute phase systems. However, recent testing has shown that propagation is

more likely with dust concentrations in the lean region. Metal dusts are more likely to propagate

deflagrations. For organic dusts, where small diameter pipes with dense phase transfer are utilized, the

need for isolation techniques could be obviated if the hazard analysis is acceptable to the AHJ.

Factors for evaluation of isolation between equipment and work areas include, among others, the

anticipated Pred for the related process equipment, the diameter and length of the connecting air duct,

and the quantity of dust in the work area that can be entrained by a pressure pulse from a deflagration

in the related process equipment.

See Annex D.1.2.11 for additional information.


9.3.3

A periodic walk-through review of operating areas shall be conducted, on a schedule established by the owner/operator per therequirement in 9.7.3 , to verify that operating procedures and safe work practices are being followed.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Adds material regarding inspections. In partial response to PI-16 regarding inspections.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.


72 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Osborn, Jack E.

"Periodic walk-through" may not be enforceable. Need to consider a more positive statement about establishing a criteria of inspection.


73 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


9.7.6

A thorough inspection of the operating area shall take place on an as-needed basis to help ensure periodic walk-through review ofoperating areas shall be conducted, on a schedule established by the owner/operator per the requirement in 9.7.3 , to verify thatthe equipment is in safe operating condition and that proper work practices are being followed .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

In response to PI-16 stating that inspections should be performed on a specified schedule. This changes inspections toperiodic walk throughs, and directs the user to section 9.4.3 for the establishment of a schedule.

ResponseMessage:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.


74 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


75 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 63-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. A.3.3.2 ]

A.3.3.3 Air-Moving Device (AMD).

An air-moving device is a fan or blower. A general description of each follows:

(1) Fans

(a) A wide range of devices that utilize an impeller, contained within a housing, that when rotated creates air/gas flow bynegative (vacuum) or positive differential pressure.

(b) These devices are commonly used to create comparatively high air/gas volume flows at relatively low differential pressures.

(c) These devices are typically used with ventilation and/or dust collection systems.

(d) Examples are centrifugal fans, industrial fans, mixed or axial flow fans, and inline fans.

(2) Blowers

(a) A wide range of devices that utilize various shaped rotating configurations, contained within a housing, that when rotatedcreate air/gas flow by negative (vacuum) or positive differential pressure.

(b) These devices are commonly used to create comparatively high differential pressures at comparatively low air/gas flows.

(c) The most common use of these devices is with pneumatic transfer, high-velocity, low-volume (HVLV) dust collection andvacuum cleaning systems.

(d) Examples are positive displacement (PD) blowers, screw compressors, multistage centrifugal compressors/blowers andregenerative blowers.

[654,2013 2017 ]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update of extracted material from 654 2017 edition.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.


76 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Osborn, Jack E.

"wide" range is ok, but why is it necessary? It does not matter if the range is "wide", just that it exists to cover the requirements - which itdoes.


77 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM



78 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

A.3.3.6 Combustible Dust.


79 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

The term combustible dust when used in this standard includes powders, fines, fibers, etc.

Dusts traditionally were defined as material 420 μm or smaller (i.e., capable of passing through a U.S. No. 40 standard sieve). Forconsistency with other standards, 500 μm (i.e., capable of passing through a U.S. No. 35 standard sieve) is now considered anappropriate size criterion. Particle surface area-to-volume ratio is a key factor in determining the rate of combustion. Combustibleparticulate solids with a minimum dimension more than 500 μm generally have a surface-to-volume ratio that is too small to pose adeflagration hazard. Flat platelet-shaped particles, flakes, or fibers with lengths that are large compared to their diameter usually donot pass through a 500 μm sieve, yet could still pose a deflagration hazard. Many particulates accumulate electrostatic charge inhandling, causing them to attract each other, forming agglomerates. Often, agglomerates behave as if they were larger particles, yetwhen they are dispersed they present a significant hazard. Consequently Therefore , it can be inferred that any particulate that has aminimum dimension less than or equal to 500 μm could behave as a combustible dust if suspended in air or the process specificoxidizer. If the minimum dimension of the particulate is greater than 500 μm, it is unlikely that the material would be a combustibledust, as determined by test. The determination of whether a sample of combustible material presents a flash-fire or explosion hazardcould be based on a screening test methodology such as provided in the ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility ofDust Clouds. Alternatively, and a standardized test method such as ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum ExplosibleConcentration of Combustible Dusts, could be used to determine dust explosibility. Chapter 5 has additional information on testingrequirements. [654,2013 2017 ]

There is some possibility that a sample will result in a false positive in the 20 L sphere when tested by the ASTM E1226 screeningtest or the ASTM E1515 test. This is due to the high energy ignition source overdriving the test. When the lowest ignition energyallowed by either method still results in a positive result, the owner/operator can elect to determine whether the sample is a

combustible dust with screening tests performed in a larger scale (≥1 m3) enclosure, which is less susceptible to overdriving andthus will provide more realistic results. [654,2013 2017 ]

This possibility for false positives has been known for quite some time and is attributed to “overdriven” conditions that exist in the 20L chamber due to the use of strong pyrotechnic igniters. For that reason, the reference method for explosibility testing is based on a

1 m3 chamber, and the 20 L chamber test method is calibrated to produce results comparable to those from the 1 m3 chamber formost dusts. In fact, the U.S. standard for 20 L testing (ASTM E1226) states, “The objective of this test method is to develop data that

can be correlated to those from the 1 m3 chamber (described in ISO 6184-1, and VDI 3673)…” ASTM E1226 further states,“Because a number of factors (concentration, uniformity of dispersion, turbulence of ignition, sample age, etc.) can affect the testresults, the test vessel to be used for routine work must be standardized using dust samples whose KSt and Pmax parameters are

known in the 1 m3 chamber.” [654,2013 2017 ]

NFPA 68 also recognizes this problem and addresses it stating that “the 20 L test apparatus is designed to simulate results of the 1

m3 chamber; however, the igniter discharge makes it problematic to determine KSt values less than 50 bar-m/sec. Where the

material is expected to yield KSt values less than 50 bar-m/sec, testing in a 1 m3 chamber might yield lower values.”

[654,2013 2017 ]

Any time a combustible dust is processed or handled, a potential for deflagration exists. The degree of deflagration hazard varies,depending on the type of combustible dust and the processing methods used. [654,2013 2017 ]

A dust deflagration has the following four requirements:

(1) Combustible dust

(2) Dust dispersion in air or other oxidant

(3) Sufficient concentration at or exceeding the minimum explosible concentration (MEC)

(4) Sufficiently powerful ignition source such as an electrostatic discharge, an electric current arc, a glowing ember, a hot surface, awelding slag, frictional heat, or a flame

[654,2013 2017 ]

If the deflagration is confined and produces a pressure sufficient to rupture the confining enclosure, the event is, by definition, an“explosion.” [654,2013 2017 ]

Evaluation of the hazard of a combustible dust should be determined by the means of actual test data. Each situation should beevaluated and applicable tests selected. The following list represents the factors that are sometimes used in determining thedeflagration hazard of a dust:

(1) MEC

(2) MIE

(3) Particle size distribution

(4) Moisture content as received and as tested

(5) Maximum explosion pressure at optimum concentration

(6) Maximum rate of pressure rise at optimum concentration

(7) KSt (normalized rate of pressure rise) as defined in ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds

(8) Layer ignition temperature

(9) Dust cloud ignition temperature

(10) Limiting oxidant concentration (LOC) to prevent ignition

(11) Electrical volume resistivity

(12) Charge relaxation time


80 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

(13) Chargeability

[654,2013 2017 ]

It is important to keep in mind that as a particulate is processed, handled, or transported, the particle size generally decreases dueto particle attrition. Consequently Therefore , it is often necessary to evaluate the explosibility of the particulate at multiple pointsalong the process. Where process conditions dictate the use of oxidizing media other than air, which is ( nominally taken as 21percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen) , the applicable tests should be conducted in the appropriate process-specific medium.[654,2013 2017 ]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update of extracted material from the 2017 edition of NFPA 654

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.


81 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Stevenson, Bill

In two cases sentences begin with the word "therefore" which is poor grammar. It would be very easy to re-write these two sentences. Forexample, instead of "Therefore, it can be inferred..." to "It can be inferred, therefore...."


82 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


A.3.3.31 Minimum Explosible Concentration (MEC).

Minimum explosible concentration is defined by the test procedure in ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum ExplosibleConcentration of Combustible Dusts. MEC is equivalent to the lower flammable limit for flammable gases. Because it has beencustomary to limit the use of the lower flammable limit to flammable vapors and gases, an alternative term is necessary forcombustible dusts. [654,2013 2017 ]

The MEC is dependent on many factors, including particulate size distribution, chemistry, moisture content, and shape.Consequently, designers and operators of processes that handle combustible particulate solids should consider those factors whenapplying existing MEC data. Often, the necessary MEC data can be obtained only by testing. [ 654, 2017]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update of extract material to the 2017 edition of 654.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.


83 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


84 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 17-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. A.5.2 ]


85 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

A.5.2


86 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Test data derived from testing material within a facility Testing actual material from a specific process or area of the facility will resultin the most accurate results for the DHA, performance-based design, and hazard management options. Testing is not required todetermine whether the material has combustibility characteristics where reliable, in-house, commodity-specific testing data orpublished data of well-characterized samples (i.e., particle size, moisture content, and test conditions) are available. Published datashould be used for preliminary assessment of combustibility only. However, for protection or prevention design methods, the datacan be acceptable after a thorough review to ensure that they are representative of owner/operator conditions.

The protection or prevention designs are based on explosivity properties, which can vary based on the specific characteristics of thematerial. (See 5.2.2 for characteristics that can affect explosibility properties.) Historical knowledge and experience of occurrenceor nonoccurrence of process incidents such as flash fires, small fires, sparkling fires, pops, or booms, or evidence of vessel, tank, orcontainer overpressure should not be used as a substitute for hazard analysis. Process incidents are indications of a material orprocess resulting in combustibility or explosion propensity. Process incidents can be used to guide or select samples for andsupplement testing.

The following material properties should be addressed by a DHA for the combustible particulate solids present:

(1) Particle Size. Sieve analysis is a crude and unreliable system of hazard determination. Its greatest contribution in managing thehazard is the ease, economy, and speed at which it can be used to discover changes in the process particulate. In any sampleof particulate, very rarely are all the particles the same size. Sieve analysis can be used to determine the fraction that would begenerally suspected of being capable of supporting a deflagration.

For a sub-500 micron fraction:

(a) Data presented in terms of the percent passing progressively smaller sieves.

(b) Particles that have high aspect ratios can produce distorted, nonconservative particle size results.

(2) Particle Size Distribution. The particle size distribution of a combustible particulate solid must be known if the explosion hazardis to be assessed solid is an important parameter in assessing an explosion hazard . Particle size implies a specific surface area(SSA) and affects the numerical measure of other parameters such as MEC, MIE, dP/dtmax, Pmax, and KSt.

Particles Spherical particles greater than 500 microns in effective mean particle diameter are generally not considereddeflagratory. Most combustible particulate solids include a range of particle sizes in any given sample. The DHA shouldanticipate and account for particle attrition and separation as particulate is handled.

(3) Particle Shape. Due to particle shape and agglomeration, some particulates cannot be sieved effectively. Particulates withnonspheric or noncubic shapes do not pass through a sieve as easily as spheric or cubic particles. For this purpose, long fiberscan behave just as explosively as spherical particulates of a similar diameter . This leads to underestimation of small particlepopulations and to underassessment of the hazard. Particulates with an aspect ratio greater than 3:1 should be suspect. Whenparticulates are poured into vessels, it is common for the fine particles to separate from the large, creating a deflagration hazardin the ullage space.

(4) Particle Aging. Some combustible particulate solid materials could undergo changes in their safety characteristics due to aging.Changes in morphology and chemical composition, for example, can occur from the time a sample is collected to the time ittakes to get that sample into the lab for a test is tested . For materials that are known to age, care must be taken in packagingand shipment. The use of vacuum seals, or an inert gas such as nitrogen, could be required to ensure that the tested samplehas not changed appreciably due to aging. The lab should be notified in advance of shipment that the material is sensitive tochange due to age so that they will know how to handle it and store it until it is tested.

(5) Particle Attrition. The material submitted for testing should be selected to address the effects of material attrition as it is movedthrough the process. As particulates move through a process they usually break down into smaller particles. Reduction inparticle size leads to an increase in total surface area to mass ratio of the particulate and increases the hazard associated withthe unoxidized particulate.

(6) Particle Suspension. Particle suspension maximizes the fuel–air interface. It occurs wherever the particulate moves relative tothe air or the air moves relative to the particulate, such as in pneumatic conveying, pouring, fluidizing, mixing and blending, orparticle size reduction.

(7) Particle Agglomeration. Some particulates tend to agglomerate into clumps. Agglomerating particulates can be more hazardousthan the test data imply if the particulate was not thoroughly deagglomerated when testing was conducted. Agglomeration isusually affected by ambient humidity.

(8) Triboelectric Attraction. Particles with a chemistry that allows electrostatic charge accumulation will become charged duringhandling. Charged particles attract oppositely charged particles. Agglomeration causes particulate to exhibit lower explosionmetrics during testing. Humidification decreases the triboelectric effect.

(9) Hydrogen Bonding. Hydrophilic particulates attract water molecules that are adsorbed onto the particle surface. Adsorbed waterprovides hydrogen bonding to adjacent particles, causing them to agglomerate. Agglomeration causes particulate to exhibitlower explosion metrics during testing. Desiccation reduces this agglomerated effect.

(10) Entrainment Fraction. The calculation for a dust dispersion from an accumulated layer should be corrected for the ease ofentrainment of the dust. Fuel chemistry and agglomeration/adhesion forces should be considered. The dispersion is generally afunction of humidity, temperature, and time. Particle shape and morphology and effective particle size should be considered.

(11) Combustible Concentration. When particles are suspended, a concentration gradient will develop where concentration variescontinuously from high to low. There is a minimum concentration that must exist before a flame front will propagate. Thisconcentration depends on particle size and chemical composition and is measured in grams/cubic meter (ounces/cubic

foot) oz/ft 3 (g/m 3 ) . This concentration is called the minimum explosible concentration (MEC). A dust dispersion can comefrom a layer of accumulated fugitive dust. The concentration attained depends on bulk density of dust layer ( [ measured in

grams/m 3 ) oz/ft 3 (g/m 3 )] , layer thickness, and the extent of the dust cloud. Combustible concentration is calculated asfollows in Equation A.5.2 : Concentration = (bulk density)*[(layer thickness)/(dust cloud thickness)]


87 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

[A.5.2]

(12) Competent Igniter. Ignition occurs where sufficient energy per unit of time and volume is applied to a deflagratory particulatesuspension. Energy per unit of mass is measured as temperature. When the temperature of the suspension is increased to theauto-ignition temperature, combustion begins. Ignitability is usually characterized by measuring the minimum ignition energy(MIE). The ignition source must provide sufficient energy per unit of time (power) to raise the temperature of the particulate to itsautoignition temperature (AIT).

(13) Dustiness/dispersibility Dispersibility . Ignition and sustained combustion occurs where a fuel and competent ignitioncourse source come together in an atmosphere (oxidant) that supports combustion. The fire triangle represents the threeelements required for a fire. Not all dusts are combustible, and combustible dusts exhibit a range in degree of hazard. Allcombustible dusts can exhibit explosion hazards accompanied by propagation away from the source. In the absence ofconfinement, a flash-fire hazard results. If confined, the deflagration can result in damaging overpressures. Deflagration is theprocess resulting in a flash fire or an explosion. The heat flux from combustible metal flash fires is greater than organicmaterials. The four elements for a flash fire are the following:

(a) A combustible dust sufficiently small enough to burn rapidly and propagate flame

(b) A suspended cloud at a concentration greater than the minimum explosion concentration

(c) The atmosphere to support combustion

(d) An ignition source of adequate energy or temperature to ignite the dust cloud

The heat flux from combustible metal flash fires is greater than organic materials (see Figure A.5.2 ) . A dust explosion requiresthe following five conditions (see Figure A.5.2 ) :



(3) Confinement of the dust cloud by an enclosure or partial enclosure



Figure A.5.2 Elements Required for Fires, Flash Fires, and Explosions.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Made revisions to correct typographical errors and clarify some statements.


88 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Response Message:

Public Input No. 68-NFPA 652-2016 [Section No. A.5.2]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


89 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM



90 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

A.5.2.2


91 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Such an assessment is to determine whether the dust is a combustible dust and if further assessment is necessary. Data can befrom samples within the facility that have been tested or data can be based on whether the material is known to be combustible ornot. There are some published data of commonly known materials, and the use of these data is adequate to determine whether thedust is a combustible dust. For well-known commodities, published data are usually acceptable. A perusal of published datailluminates that there is often a significant spread in values. It is useful, therefore, to compare attributes (such as particle distributionand moisture content) in published data with the actual material being handled in the system whenever possible. Doing so wouldhelp to verify that the data are pertinent to the hazard under assessment.

Subsection 5.2.2 does not require the user to know all these items for the assessment; rather, it reviews the important items in orderto determine whether the material data are representative of the material in the facility. Even test data of material can be differentfrom the actual conditions. Users should review the conditions of the test method as well to ensure that it is representative of theconditions of the facility. Where that is not possible, the use of worst-case values should be selected.

Composition and particle size are two parameters that are useful to identify the number and location of representative samples to becollected and tested. (See Section 5.5 for information on sampling.)

Refer to Tables A.5.2.2(a) A.5.2.2(a) through A.5.2.2(k) for guidance only and not as substitutes for actual test data. These tablesare not all-inclusive of all combustible dusts and noncombustible dusts. Additionally, material properties and testing methods canprovide results that vary from those presented in these tables.

Table A.5.2.2(a) 20-L Sphere Test Data – Agricultural Dusts

Dust NameP max

(bar g)

(1)

K St

(bar m/sec)

Percent

Moisture

Particle Size

(μm)

Minimum

Explosive

Concentration

(g/m 3 )

Percent Greater Than 200 Mesh

Alfalfa 6.7 94 2.1 36

Apple 6.7 34 155 125

Beet root 6.1 30 108 125

Carrageen 8.5 140 3.8 98

Carrot 6.9 65 29

Cocoa bean dust 7.5 152

Cocoa powder 7.3 128

Coconut shell dust 6.8 111 6.5 51

Coffee dust 6.9 55 4.8 321

Corn meal 6.2 47 8.2 403

Cornstarch 7.8 163 11.2

Cotton 7.2 24 44 100

Cottonseed 7.7 35 245 125

Garlic powder 8.6 164

Gluten 7.7 110 150 125

Grass dust 8.0 47 200 125

Green coffee 7.8 116 5.0 45

Hops (malted) 8.2 90 490

Lemon peel dust 6.8 125 9.5 38

Lemon pulp 6.7 74 2.8 180

Linseed 6.0 17 300

Locust bean gum 7.8 78 1.7 53

Malt 7.5 170 10.5 72

Oat flour 6.4 81 8.6

Oat grain dust 6.0 14 295 750

Olive pellets 10.4 74 125

Onion powder 9.0 157

Parlsey (dehydrated) 7.5 110 5.4 26

Peach 8.4 81 140 60

Peanut meal and skins 6.4 45 3.8

Peat 8.3 51 74 125

Potato 6.0 20 82 250

Potato flour 9.1 69 65 125

Potato starch 9.4 89 32

Raw yucca seed dust 6.2 65 12.7 403


92 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Dust NameP max

(bar g)

(1)

K St

(bar m/sec)

Percent

Moisture

Particle Size

(μm)

Minimum

Explosive

Concentration

(g/m 3 )

Percent Greater Than 200 Mesh

Rice dust 7.7 118 2.5 4

Rice flour 7.4 57 60

Rice starch 10.0 190 18 90

Rye flour 8.9 79 29

Semolina 7.6 79 9

Soybean dust 7.5 125 2.1 59

Spice dust 6.9 65 10.0

Spice powder 7.8 172 10.0

Sugar (10×) 8.4 154

Sunflower 7.9 44 420 125

Tea 7.6 102 6.3 77 125

Tobacco blend 8.8 124 1.0 120

Tomato 200 100

Walnut dust 8.4 174 6.0 31

Wheat flour 8.3 87 12.9 57 60 6

Wheat grain dust 9.3 112 80 60

Wheat starch 9.8 132 20 60

Xanthan gum 7.5 61 8.6 45

Notes:

Normalized to l m 3 test vessel pressures, per ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds .)

See also Table F.1(a) in NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting , for additional information onagricultural dusts with known explosion hazards.

For those agricultural dusts without known explosion data, the dust should be tested in accordance with ASTM E1226,Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds .

© 1995 FM Global. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

[ 61: Table A.6.2.1]

Table A.5.2.2(a) 20-L Sphere Test Data – Agricultural Dusts

Dust NamePercent

Moisture

MedianParticle

Size (μm)

Percent <200 Mesh

(%)

P max(bar g)

(1) K St(bar

m/sec)

Minimum ExplosiveConcentration

(g/m 3 )

MinimumIgnition

Energy (mJ)

Alfalfa 2.1 36 83 6.7 94

Angel Food Cake 4.1 41 7.5 132

Apple 155 9 6.7 34 125

Beet root 108 26 6.1 30 125

Carrageenan 3.8 98 8.5 140

Carrot 4.0 29 76 6.9 65

Cereal dust (mixed) 4.4 121 6.7 74 265

Cheesy pasta saucemix (corn starch andspices)

7.9 <45 68 7.2 99 45

Chili sauce mix (cornstarch and spices)

7.0 79 70 6.6 60 74

Cocoa bean dust 2.3 45 100 7.1 133

Cocoa powder 3.9 194 14 8.0 162 65 100–180

Coconut shell dust 6.5 51 6.8 111

Coffee dust – coarseparticles

4.8 321 0.4 6.9 55 160*

Coffee dust – fineparticles

4 40 100 7.7 158

Corn (maize) 9.0 165 8.7 117 30 >10

Corn meal 8.2 403 0.6 6.2 47


93 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Dust NamePercent

Moisture

MedianParticle

Size (μm)

Percent <200 Mesh

(%)

P max(bar g)

(1) K St(bar

m/sec)


(g/m 3 )

MinimumIgnition

Energy (mJ)

Cornstarch – coarseparticles

2.2 217 0.1 7.9 186 30–60*

Cornstarch – fineparticles

11 100 9.5 141 60

Cotton 44 72 7.2 24 100

Cottonseed 245 10 7.7 35 125

Fudge brownie mix 4.8 221 5.8 43

Garlic powder 8.6 164

Gluten 150 33 7.7 110 125

Grass dust 200 8.0 47 125

Green coffee 5.0 45 81 7.8 116

Hops (malted) 490 9 8.2 90

Lemon peel dust 9.5 38 73 6.8 125

Lemon pulp 2.8 180 17 6.7 74

Linseed 300 6.0 17

Locust bean gum 1.7 53 7.8 78

Malt 10.5 72 54 7.5 170

Milk powder 3.1 41 88 7.5 145

Oat flour 4.3 180 0.2 6.8 64

Oat grain dust 295 6.0 14 750

Olive pellets 10.4 74 125

Onion powder 9.0 157

Parmesan sauce mix(corn starch andspices)

6.7 66 60 6.1 45 62

Parlsey (dehydrated) 5.4 26 7.5 110

Peach 140 17 8.4 81 60

Peanut meal and skins 3.8 6.4 45

Peat 74 48 8.3 51 125

Potato 82 30 6 20 250

Potato flakes 8.0 249 7.0 6.2 33

Potato flour 65 53 9.1 69 125

Potato starch 32 100 9.4 89 >3200

Raw yucca seed dust 12.7 403 5 6.2 65

Rice dust 2.5 4 7.7 118 40–120*

Rice flour 12.2 45 100 7.7 140 65 >500

Rice starch 18 90 10 190

Rye flour 29 76 8.9 79

Semolina 13.6 57 100 7.0 109

Snack mix spices 8.3 85 6.8 73

Soybean dust 2.1 59 7.5 125

Spice dust 10.0 2 6.9 65

Spice powder 10.0 7.8 172

Sugar, fine 1.3 45 100 7.6 117 135 38

Sugar, granulated 2 152 13 6.2 66

Sugar, powdered 13 45 100 7.0 122 30*

Sunflower 420 10 7.9 44 125

Tea 6.3 77 53 7.6 102 125

Tobacco blend 1.0 120 8.0 124

Tomato 200 1 100

Walnut dust 6.0 31 8.4 174

Wheat/rice cereal base 2.8 187 5.7 28 150


94 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Dust NamePercent

Moisture

MedianParticle

Size (μm)

Percent <200 Mesh

(%)

P max(bar g)

(1) K St(bar

m/sec)


(g/m 3 )

MinimumIgnition

Energy (mJ)

Wheat/rice cereal baseregrinds

6.4 217 6.4 29

Wheat flour 12.9 57 60 8.3 87 60

Wheat grain dust 80 48 9.3 112 60

Wheat starch 20 9.8 132 60 25–60*

Xanthan gum 8.6 45 91 7.5 61

Yellow cake mix 6.1 219 6.3 73

*The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering , 4th Edition, Table 3-18.2.

Notes:

(1) Normalized to 1 m 3 test vessel pressures, per ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds .

(2) See also Table F.1(a) in NFPA 68 for additional information on agricultural dusts with known explosion hazards.

(3) For those agricultural dusts without known explosion data, the dust should be tested in accordance with establishedstandardized test methods.

Source: FM Global, © 2015. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

[ 61: Table A.5.2.2]

Table A.5.2.2(b) 1 m3 Vessel Test Data from Forschungsbericht Staubexplosionen – Agricultural Dusts

Material Mass Median Diameter (μm)

Minimum

Flammable

Concentration

(g/m3)

Pmax

(bar)

KSt

(bar-m/s)

Dust Hazard

Class

Cellulose 33 60 9.7 229 2

Cellulose pulp 42 30 9.9 62 1

Cork 42 30 9.6 202 2

Corn 28 60 9.4 75 1

Egg white 17 125 8.3 38 1

Milk, powdered 83 60 5.8 28 1

Milk, nonfat, dry 60 — 8.8 125 1

Soy flour 20 200 9.2 110 1

Starch, corn 7 — 10.3 202 2

Starch, rice 18 60 9.2 101 1

Starch, wheat 22 30 9.9 115 1

Sugar 30 200 8.5 138 1

Sugar, milk 27 60 8.3 82 1

Sugar, beet 29 60 8.2 59 1

Tapioca 22 125 9.4 62 1

Whey 41 125 9.8 140 1

Wood flour 29 — 10.5 205 2

[68: Table F.1(a)]

Table A.5.2.2(c) 1 m3 Vessel Test Data from Forschungsbericht Staubexplosionen – Carbonaceous Dusts


Minimum

Flammable

Concentration

(g/m3)

Pmax

(bar)

KSt

(bar-m/s)Dust Hazard Class

Charcoal, activated 28 60 7.7 14 1

Charcoal, wood 14 60 9.0 10 1

Coal, bituminous 24 60 9.2 129 1

Coke, petroleum 15 125 7.6 47 1

Lampblack <10 60 8.4 121 1

Lignite 32 60 10.0 151 1

Peat, 22% H2O — 125 84.0 67 1


95 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


Minimum

Flammable

Concentration

(g/m3)

Pmax

(bar)

KSt


Soot, pine <10 — 7.9 26 1

[68: Table F.1(b)]

Table A.5.2.2(d) 1 m3 Vessel Test Data from Forschungsbericht Staubexplosionen – Chemical Dusts


Minimum

Flammable

Concentration

(g/m3)

Pmax

(bar)

KSt


Adipic acid <10 60 8.0 97 1

Anthraquinone <10 — 10.6 364 3

Ascorbic acid 39 60 9.0 111 1

Calcium acetate 92 500 5.2 9 1

Calcium acetate 85 250 6.5 21 1

Calcium stearate 12 30 9.1 132 1

Carboxy- methyl- cellulose 24 125 9.2 136 1

Dextrin 41 60 8.8 106 1

Lactose 23 60 7.7 81 1

Lead stearate 12 30 9.2 152 1

Methyl-cellulose 75 60 9.5 134 1

Paraformaldehyde 23 60 9.9 178 1

Sodium ascorbate 23 60 8.4 119 1

Sodium stearate 22 30 8.8 123 1

Sulfur 20 30 6.8 151 1

[68: Table F.1(c)]

Table A.5.2.2(e) 1 m3 Vessel Test Data from Forschungsbericht Staubexplosionen – Metal Dusts


Minimum

Flammable

Concentration

(g/m3)

Pmax

(bar)

KSt


Aluminum 29 30 12.4 415 3

Bronze 18 750 4.1 31 1

Iron carbonyl <10 125 6.1 111 1

Magnesium 28 30 17.5 508 3

Phenolic resin 55 — 7.9 269 2

Zinc 10 250 6.7 125 1

Zinc <10 125 7.3 176 1

[68: Table F.1(d)]

Table A.5.2.2(f) 1 m3 Vessel Test Data from Forschungsbericht Staubexplosionen(except where noted) – Plastic Dusts

MaterialMass MedianDiameter (μm)

Minimum

Flammable

Concentration

(g/m3)

Pmax

(bar)

KSt

(bar-m/s)

Dust HazardClass

(poly) Acrylamide 10 250 5.9 12 1

(poly) Acrylonitrile 25 — 8.5 121 1

(poly) Ethylene (low-pressure process) <10 30 8.0 156 1

Epoxy resin 26 30 7.9 129 1

Melamine resin 18 125 10.2 110 1

Melamine, molded (wood flour and mineral filledphenol-formaldehyde)

15 60 7.5 41 1

Melamine, molded (phenol-cellulose) 12 60 10.0 127 1


96 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

MaterialMass MedianDiameter (μm)

Minimum

Flammable

Concentration

(g/m3)

Pmax

(bar)

KSt

(bar-m/s)

Dust HazardClass

(poly) Methyl acrylate 21 30 9.4 269 2

(poly) Methyl acrylate, emulsion polymer 18 30 10.1 202 2

Phenolic resin <10 15 9.3 129 1

55 7.9 269 2

(poly) Propylene 25 30 8.4 101 1

Terpene-phenol resin 10 15 8.7 143 1

Urea-formaldehyde/ cellulose, molded 13 60 10.2 136 1

(poly) Vinyl acetate/ ethylene copolymer 32 30 8.6 119 1

(poly) Vinyl alcohol 26 60 8.9 128 1

(poly) Vinyl butyral 65 30 8.9 147 1

(poly) Vinyl chloride 107 200 7.6 46 1

(poly) Vinyl chloride/vinyl acetylene emulsioncopolymer

35 60 8.2 95 1

(poly) Vinyl chloride/ethylene/vinyl acetylenesuspension copolymer

60 60 8.3 98 1

[68: Table F.1(e)]

Table A.5.2.2(g) 20 L and 1 m3 Vessel Test Data, PVC and Copolymer Plastic Resins and Dusts

GPa

DispersionVAb

Copolymer

Baghouse Dustfrom GP Pipe(as received)

GP Pipe

Resinc

Baghouse Dustfrom GP Pipe(as received)

GP PipeResin (asreceived)

High MolecularWeight Resin(as received)

Type of polymerization process

PVC ResinSample

Emulsion Suspension

Plant designator A B C C D D E

Test lab Chilworth Chilworth Chilworth Fike Chilworth Chilworth (20

L), Fike (1 m3)

Fike

Minimum IgnitionEnergy (MIE),Joules

>10 J >10 J >500 mJ >4653 mJ >10 J >10 J >4468 mJ

Explosion severity,KSt (bar-m/s), 20

L test chamber

91 68 84 18 54 9 81

Dust explosionclass in 20 L testchamber

ST 1 ST 1 ST 1 ST 1 ST 1 ST 1 ST 1

Explosion severity,KSt (bar-m/s), 1

m3 test chamber

Not tested Not tested Not tested 0 Not tested 0 0

Dust explosion

class in 1 m3 testchamber

Not tested Not tested Not tested ST 0 Not tested ST 0 ST 0

Particle size, avg.(µm)

1 (est.) N.A. N.A. 162 N.A. 158 128

Dust fraction (<75µm, %)

100 100 100 0.1 97 0 0.6

Note: Sponsored by the Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA 22314.

aGP: General Purpose

bVA: Vinyl Acetate

cDate for MIE and 20 L test were performed by Fike on sample screened to <150 µm and data for 1 m3 tests were performed byFike on ‘as received’ sample.

Source: Krock, R., et. al., “OSHA’s Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program and Combustibility Characteristics Testing of PVCResins and PVC Dusts,” SPE ANTEC, April, 2012.

Table A.5.2.2(h) Explosibility Properties of Metals


97 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

MaterialMedian

Diameter(μm)

Kst

(bar-m/s)

Pmax

(barg)

Cloud IgnTemp(°C)

MIE

(mJ)

MEC

(g/m3)

UN Combustibility

Category2LOC1

(v%)Data Source

Aluminum ~7 — 8 — — 90Cashdollar &Zlochower4

Aluminum 22 — — — — — — 5 (N) BGIA3

Aluminum <44 — 5.8 650 50 45 2 (C)BuMines RI

6516

Aluminum flake <44 6.1 650 20 45 <3 (C)BuMines RI

6516

Aluminum <10 515 11.2 560 — 60 — — BGIA3

Aluminum 580Not

Ignited— — — — — — BGIA

Beryllium 4Not

Ignited— — — — — —

BuMines RI6516

Boron <44 — — 470 60 <100 — —BuMines RI

6516

Boron ~3 — 6.0 ≈110Cashdollar &Zlochower

Bronze 18 31 4.1 390 — 750 BZ 4 Eckhoff

Chromium 6 — 3.3 660 5120 770 14 (C)BuMines RI

6516

Chromium 3 — 3.9 580 140 230 — —BuMines RI

6517

Copper ~30Not

IgnitedCashdollar &Zlochower

Hafnium ~8 — 4.2 — — ~180 — —Cashdollar &Zlochower

Iron 12 50 5.2 580 500 — Eckhoff

Iron ~45 — 2.1 — — ~500 — —Cashdollar &Zlochower

Iron < 44 — 2.8 430 80 170 — 13 (C)BuMines RI

6516

Iron, carbonyl < 10 111 6.1 310 125 BZ 3 Eckhoff

Manganese < 44 — — 460 305 125 —BuMines RI

6516

Manganese(electrolytic) 16 157 6.3 330 — — — — Eckhoff

Manganese(electrolytic) 33 69 6.6 — — — — — Eckhoff

Magnesium 28 508 17.5 — — — — Eckhoff

Magnesium 240 12 7 760 500 BZ 5 Eckhoff

Magnesium <44 — — 620 40 40 —BuMines RI

6516

Magnesium <44 — 600 240 30 — <3 (C)BuMines RI

6516

Magnesium ~16 — 7.5 — — 55 — —Cashdollar &Zlochower

Molybdenum <10Not

IgnitedEckhoff

Nickel ~6Not


Niobium 80 238 6.3 560 3 70 6 (Ar) Industry

Niobium 70 326 7.1 591 3 50 5 (Ar) Industry

Silicon <10 126 10.2 >850 54 125 BZ 3 Eckhoff

Silicon, from dustcollector

16 100 9.4 800 — 60 — Eckhoff

Silicon, from filter <10 116 9.5 >850 250 60 BZ 1 Eckhoff

Tantalum <44 — — 630 120 <200 3 (Ar)BuMines RI

6516

Tantalum ~10 ≈3 ≈400Cashdollar &Zlochower

Tantalum 100 149 6.0 460 <3 160 2 (Ar) Industry


98 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

MaterialMedian

Diameter(μm)

Kst

(bar-m/s)

Pmax

(barg)

Cloud IgnTemp(°C)

MIE

(mJ)

MEC

(g/m3)

UN Combustibility

Category2LOC1

(v%)Data Source

Tantalum 80 97 3.7 540 <3 160 2(Ar) Industry



Tantalum 21 5.6 430 <3 125 <2(Ar) Industry

Tantalum 25 400 >1<3 30 <2(Ar) Industry

Tin ~8 — 3.3 — — ~450 — —Cashdollar &Zlochower

Titanium 36Not

IgnitedBZ 2 BGIA

Titanium 30 — — 450 — — — Eckhof

Titanium ~25 4.7 — — 70 —Cashdollar &Zlochower

Titanium 10 — 4.8 330 25 456 (N) 4

(Ar)BuMines RI

6515

Tungsten ≤1 — ~2.3 — — ~700 — —Cashdollar &Zlochower

Tungsten ~10Not


Zinc (from collector) <10 125 6.7 570 — 250 BZ 3 Eckhoff

Zinc (from collector) 10 176 7.3 — — 125 BZ 2 Eckhoff

Zinc (from Zn coating) 19 85 6 800 — — BZ 2 Eckhoff

Zinc (from Zn coating) 21 93 6.8 790 — 250 — Eckhoff

Zirconium <44 — 5.2 20 5 45 —Ignites inN2 & CO2

BuMines RI6516

Zirconium (Zircalloy-2) 50 — 3.0 420 30 — — —BuMines RI

6516

(1) Limiting Oxygen Concentration. The letter in parenthesis in the LOC column denotes the inert gas used to reduce the oxygenconcentration as follows: Ar = argon, C = carbon dioxide, N = nitrogen

(2) UN Dust Layer Combustibility Categories are as follows: BZ1 No self-sustained combustion; BZ2 Local combustion of shortduration; BZ3 Local sustained combustion, but no propagation; BZ4 Propagating smoldering combustion; BZ5 Propagatingopen flame; BZ6 Explosive combustion.

(3) BGIA is the GESTIS-DUST-EX database maintained by BGIA-online.hvbg.de

(4) Cashdollar, Kenneth, and Zlochower, Isaac, “Explosion Temperatures and Pressures of Metals and Other Elemental DustClouds,” J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, v. 20, 2007.

[484: Table A.1.1.3(b)]

Table A.5.2.2(i) Atomized Aluminum Particle Ignition and Explosion Data

ParticleSize

(d50)

(μm)

BET

(m2/g)

MEC

(g/m3)

Pmax

(psi)

dP/dtmax

(psi/sec)

KSt

(bar·m/sec)

Sample

Concentration

That Corresponds

to Pmax and

dP/dtmax(g/m3)MIE(mJ) LOC (%)

Most Easily

Ignitible

Concentration

(g/m3)

Nonspherical, Nodular, or Irregular Powders

53 0.18 170 123 3,130 59 1,250

42 0.19 70 133 5,720 1071,250 (Pmax), 1,000

(dP/dtmax)

32 0.34 60 142 7,950 149 1,250 10

32 0.58 65 133 8,880 167750 (Pmax), 1,500

(dP/dtmax)11

Ignition @ 8.0%Nonignition @ 7.5%

1,000

30 0.10 60 10

28 0.11 55 140 6,360 1191,000 (Pmax), 1,250

(dP/dtmax)11

28 0.21 55 146 8,374 157 1,500 11

9 0.90 65 165 15,370 288750 (Pmax), 1,000

(dP/dtmax)4


99 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

ParticleSize

(d50)

(μm)

BET

(m2/g)

MEC

(g/m3)

Pmax

(psi)

dP/dtmax

(psi/sec)

KSt

(bar·m/sec)

Sample

Concentration

That Corresponds

to Pmax and

dP/dtmax(g/m3)MIE(mJ) LOC (%)

Most Easily

Ignitible

Concentration

(g/m3)

7 0.74 90 153 17,702 3321,000 (Pmax), 500

(dP/dtmax)12

6 0.15 80 176 15,580 292 750 3.5

6 0.70 75 174 15,690 294500 (Pmax), 1,000

(dP/dtmax)3

5 1.00 70 4

4 0.78 75 167 15,480 2911,000 (Pmax), 750

(dP/dtmax)3.5

Spherical Powders

63 0.15 120 101 1,220 231,250 (Pmax), 1,000

(dP/dtmax)N.I.

Ignition @ 8.0%Nonignition @ 7.5%

1,750

36 0.25 60 124 4,770 90 1,250 13

30 0.10 60 140 5,940 111 1,000 13

15 0.50 45 148 10,812 203 1,000 7

15 0.30 55 8

6 0.53 75 174 16,324 306 750 6

5 1.30 167 14,310 269 750Ignition @ 6.0%

Nonignition @ 5.5%750

5 1.00 70 155 14,730 276 1,250 6Ignition @ 6.0%

Nonignition @ 5.5%1,250

3 2.50 95 165 15,900 298 1,250 4

2 3.00 130

For U.S. conversions: 1 m2/g = 4884 ft2/lb; 1 g/m2 = 0.000062 lb/ft2; 1 bar/sec = 14.5 psi/sec; 1 bar·m/sec = 0.226 psi·ft/sec.

BET: surface area per unit mass; MEC: minimum explosible concentration; MIE: minimum ignition energy; LOC: limiting oxygen (O2)

concentration.

Notes:

(1) The powders tested are representative samples produced by various manufacturers utilizing a variety of methods ofmanufacture, submitted for testing to a single, nationally recognized testing laboratory, at the same time.

(2) Data for each characteristic were obtained using the following ASTM methods: MEC: ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method forMinimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts; MIE: ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum IgnitionEnergy of a Dust Cloud in Air; maximum pressure rise (Pmax), maximum pressure rise rate (dP/dt), and deflagration index

(KSt): ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds; LOC: ASTM E2079, Standard Test Methods for

Limiting Oxygen (Oxidant) Concentration in Gases and Vapors.

(3) Particle size data represent the d50 measurement determined by the laser light–scattering technique.

(4) Test results represent only the characteristics of those samples tested and should not be considered to be universallyapplicable. Users are encouraged to test samples of powders obtained from their individual process.

[484:Table A.4.3.1]

Table A.5.2.2(j) Explosion Characteristics of Unalloyed Magnesium Dust in Air [200 mesh (75 μm)]

Explosion Characteristics Values

Explosibility index a 10

Ignition sensitivity b 3.0

Explosion severity c 7.4

Maximum explosion pressure (gauge) 793 kPa (115 psi)

Maximum rate of pressure rise (gauge) 793 kPa/sec (15,000 psi/sec)

Ignition temperature cloud 1040°F (560°C)

Minimum cloud ignition energy 0.04 J (26.4 W/sec)

Minimum explosion concentration 0.328 kg/m3 (0.03 oz/ft3)

Limiting oxygen percent for spark ignitiond * —

Note: KSt values vary for specific particle sizes.


100 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

a Explosibility index = ignition sensitivity × explosion severity.

b Ignition sensitivity =

c Explosion severity =

d Burns in carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and halons.

[484: Table D.2]

Table A.5.2.2(k) Selected Combustible Dusts Layer or Cloud Ignition Temperature

Chemical Name CAS No. NEC Group Code

Layer or

Cloud Ignition

Temperature

(°C)

Acetal, linear G NL 440

Acetoacet-p-phenetidide 122-82-7 G NL 560

Acetoacetanilide 102-01-2 G M 440

Acetylamino-t-nitrothiazole G 450

Acrylamide polymer G 240

Acrylonitrile polymer G 460

Acrylonitrile-vinyl chloride-vinylidenechloride copolymer (70-20-10) G 210

Acrylonitrile-vinyl pyridine copolymer G 240

Adipic acid 124-04-9 G M 550

Alfalfa meal G 200

Alkyl ketone dimer sizing compound G 160

Allyl alcohol derivative (CR-39) G NL 500

Almond shell G 200

Aluminum, A422 flake 7429-90-5 E 320

Aluminum, atomized collector fines E CL 550

Aluminum—cobalt alloy (60-40) E 570

Aluminum—copper alloy (50-50) E 830

Aluminum—lithium alloy (15% Li) E 400

Aluminum—magnesium alloy (dowmetal) E CL 430

Aluminum—nickel alloy (58-42) E 540

Aluminum—silicon alloy (12% Si) E NL 670

Amino-5-nitrothiazole 121-66-4 G 460

Anthranilic acid 118-92-3 G M 580

Apricot pit G 230

Aryl-nitrosomethylamide G NL 490

Asphalt 8052-42-4 F 510

Aspirin [acetol (2)] 50-78-2 G M 660

Azelaic acid 109-31-9 G M 610

Azo-bis-butyronitrile 78-67-1 G 350

Benzethonium chloride G CL 380

Benzoic acid 65-85-0 G M 620

Benzotriazole 95-14-7 G M 440

Beta-naphthalene-axo- dimethylaniline G 175

Bis(2-hydroxy- 5-chlorophenyl) methane 97-23-4 G NL 570

Bisphenol-A 80-05-7 G M 570

Boron, commercial amorphous (85% B) 7440-42-8 E 400


101 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


Layer or

Cloud Ignition

Temperature

(°C)

Calcium silicide E 540

Carbon black (more than 8% total entrapped volatiles) F

Carboxymethyl cellulose 9000-11-7 G 290

Carboxypolymethylene G NL 520

Cashew oil, phenolic, hard G 180

Cellulose G 260

Cellulose acetate G 340

Cellulose acetate butyrate G NL 370

Cellulose triacetate G NL 430

Charcoal (activated) 64365-11-3 F 180

Charcoal (more than 8% total entrapped volatiles) F

Cherry pit G 220

Chlorinated phenol G NL 570

Chlorinated polyether alcohol G 460

Chloroacetoacetanilide 101-92-8 G M 640

Chromium (97%) electrolytic, milled 7440-47-3 E 400

Cinnamon G 230

Citrus peel G 270

Coal, Kentucky bituminous F 180

Coal, Pittsburgh experimental F 170

Coal, Wyoming F 180

Cocoa bean shell G 370

Cocoa, natural, 19% fat G 240

Coconut shell G 220

Coke (more than 8% total entrapped volatiles) F

Cork G 210

Corn G 250

Corn dextrine G 370

Corncob grit G 240

Cornstarch, commercial G 330

Cornstarch, modified G 200

Cottonseed meal G 200

Coumarone-indene, hard G NL 520

Crag No. 974 533-74-4 G CL 310

Cube root, South America 83-79-4 G 230

Di-alphacumyl peroxide, 40-60 on CA 80-43-3 G 180

Diallyl phthalate 131-17-9 G M 480

Dicyclopentadiene dioxide G NL 420

Dieldrin (20%) 60-57-1 G NL 550

Dihydroacetic acid G NL 430

Dimethyl isophthalate 1459-93-4 G M 580

Dimethyl terephthalate 120-61-6 G M 570

Dinitro-o-toluamide 148-01-6 G NL 500

Dinitrobenzoic acid G NL 460

Diphenyl 92-52-4 G M 630

Ditertiary-butyl-paracresol 128-37-0 G NL 420

Dithane m-45 8018-01-7 G 180

Epoxy G NL 540

Epoxy-bisphenol A G NL 510

Ethyl cellulose G CL 320

Ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose G NL 390

Ethylene oxide polymer G NL 350


102 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


Layer or

Cloud Ignition

Temperature

(°C)

Ethylene-maleic anhydride copolymer G NL 540

Ferbam™ 14484-64-1 G 150

Ferromanganese, medium carbon 12604-53-4 E 290

Ferrosilicon (88% Si, 9% Fe) 8049-17-0 E 800

Ferrotitanium (19% Ti, 74.1% Fe, 0.06% C) E CL 380

Flax shive G 230

Fumaric acid 110-17-8 G M 520

Garlic, dehydrated G NL 360

Gilsonite 12002-43-6 F 500

Green base harmon dye G 175

Guar seed G NL 500

Gulasonic acid, diacetone G NL 420

Gum, arabic G 260

Gum, karaya G 240

Gum, manila G CL 360

Gum, tragacanth 9000-65-1 G 260

Hemp hurd G 220

Hexamethylene tetramine 100-97-0 G S 410

Hydroxyethyl cellulose G NL 410

Iron, 98% H2 reduced E 290

Iron, 99% carbonyl 13463-40-6 E 310

Isotoic anhydride G NL 700

L-sorbose G M 370

Lignin, hydrolized, wood-type, fine G NL 450

Lignite, California F 180

Lycopodium G 190

Malt barley G 250

Manganese 7439-96-5 E 240

Magnesium, grade B, milled E 430

Manganese vancide G 120

Mannitol 69-65-8 G M 460

Methacrylic acid polymer G 290

Methionine (l-methionine) 63-68-3 G 360

Methyl cellulose G 340

Methyl methacrylate polymer 9011-14-7 G NL 440

Methyl methacrylate-ethyl acrylate G NL 440

Methyl methacrylate-styrene- butadiene G NL 480

Milk, skimmed G 200

N,N-dimethylthio- formamide G 230

Nitropyridone 100703-82-0 G M 430

Nitrosamine G NL 270

Nylon polymer 63428-84-2 G 430

Para-oxy-benzaldehyde 123-08-0 G CL 380

Paraphenylene diamine 106-50-3 G M 620

Paratertiary butyl benzoic acid 98-73-7 G M 560

Pea flour G 260

Peach pit shell G 210

Peanut hull G 210

Peat, sphagnum 94114-14-4 G 240

Pecan nut shell 8002-03-7 G 210

Pectin 5328-37-0 G 200

Pentaerythritol 115-77-5 G M 400


103 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


Layer or

Cloud Ignition

Temperature

(°C)

Petrin acrylate monomer 7659-34-9 G NL 220

Petroleum coke (more than 8% total entrapped volatiles) F

Petroleum resin 64742-16-1 G 500

Phenol formaldehyde 9003-35-4 G NL 580

Phenol formaldehyde, polyalkylene-p 9003-35-4 G 290

Phenol furfural 26338-61-4 G 310

Phenylbetanaphthylamine 135-88-6 G NL 680

Phthalic anydride 85-44-9 G M 650

Phthalimide 85-41-6 G M 630

Pitch, coal tar 65996-93-2 F NL 710

Pitch, petroleum 68187-58-6 F NL 630

Polycarbonate G NL 710

Polyethylene, high pressure process 9002-88-4 G 380

Polyethylene, low pressure process 9002-88-4 G NL 420

Polyethylene terephthalate 25038-59-9 G NL 500

Polyethylene wax 68441-04-8 G NL 400

Polypropylene (no antioxidant) 9003-07-0 G NL 420

Polystyrene latex 9003-53-6 G 500

Polystyrene molding compound 9003-53-6 G NL 560

Polyurethane foam, fire retardant 9009-54-5 G 390

Polyurethane foam, no fire retardant 9009-54-5 G 440

Polyvinyl acetate 9003-20-7 G NL 550

Polyvinyl acetate/alcohol 9002-89-5 G 440

Polyvinyl butyral 63148-65-2 G 390

Polyvinyl chloride-dioctyl phthalate G NL 320

Potato starch, dextrinated 9005-25-8 G NL 440

Pyrethrum 8003-34-7 G 210

Rayon (viscose) flock 61788-77-0 G 250

Red dye intermediate G 175

Rice G 220

Rice bran G NL 490

Rice hull G 220

Rosin, DK 8050-09-7 G NL 390

Rubber, crude, hard 9006-04-6 G NL 350

Rubber, synthetic, hard (33% S) 64706-29-2 G NL 320

Safflower meal G 210

Salicylanilide 87-17-2 G M 610

Sevin 63-25-2 G 140

Shale, oil 68308-34-9 F

Shellac 9000-59-3 G NL 400

Sodium resinate 61790-51-0 G 220

Sorbic acid (copper sorbate or potash) 110-44-1 G 460

Soy flour 68513-95-1 G 190

Soy protein 9010-10-0 G 260

Stearic acid, aluminum salt 637-12-7 G 300

Stearic acid, zinc salt 557-05-1 G M 510

Styrene modified polyester-glass fiber 100-42-5 G 360

Styrene-acrylonitrile (70-30) 9003-54-7 G NL 500

Styrene-butadiene latex (>75% styrene) 903-55-8 G NL 440

Styrene-maleic anhydride copolymer 9011-13-6 G CL 470

Sucrose 57-50-1 G CL 350

Sugar, powdered 57-50-1 G CL 370


104 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


Layer or

Cloud Ignition

Temperature

(°C)

Sulfur 7704-34-9 G 220

Tantalum 7440-25-7 E 300

Terephthalic acid 100-21-0 G NL 680

Thorium (contains 1.2% O) 7440-29-1 E CL 270

Tin, 96%, atomized (2% Pb) 7440-31-5 E 430

Titanium, 99% Ti 7440-32-6 E CL 330

Titanium hydride (95% Ti, 3.8% H) 7704-98-5 E CL 480

Trithiobisdimethylthio- formamide G 230

Tung, kernels, oil-free 8001-20-5 G 240

Urea formaldehyde molding compound 9011-05-6 G NL 460

Urea formaldehyde-phenol formaldehyde 25104-55-6 G 240

Vanadium, 86.4% 7440-62-2 E 490

Vinyl chloride-acrylonitrile copolymer 9003-00-3 G 470

Vinyl toluene-acrylonitrile butadiene 76404-69-8 G NL 530

Violet 200 dye G 175

Vitamin B1, mononitrate 59-43-8 G NL 360

Vitamin C 50-81-7 G 280

Walnut shell, black G 220

Wheat G 220

Wheat flour 130498-22-5 G 360

Wheat gluten, gum 100684-25-1 G NL 520

Wheat starch G NL 380

Wheat straw G 220

Wood flour G 260

Woodbark, ground G 250

Yeast, torula 68602-94-8 G 260

Zirconium hydride 7704-99-6 E 270

Zirconium (contains 0.3% O) 7440-67-7 E CL 330

Notes:

1. Normally, the minimum ignition temperature of a layer of a specific dust is lower than the minimum ignition temperature of a cloudof that dust. Since this is not universally true, the lower of the two minimum ignition temperatures is listed. If no symbol appears inthe “Code” column, then the layer ignition temperature is shown. “CL” means the cloud ignition temperature is shown. “NL” meansthat no layer ignition temperature is available, and the cloud ignition temperature is shown. “M” signifies that the dust layer meltsbefore it ignites; the cloud ignition temperature is shown. “S” signifies that the dust layer sublimes before it ignites; the cloud ignitiontemperature is shown.

2. Certain metal dusts might have characteristics that require safeguards beyond those required for atmospheres containing thedusts of aluminum, magnesium, and their commercial alloys. For example, zirconium and thorium dusts can ignite spontaneously inair, especially at elevated temperatures.

3. Due to the impurities found in coal, its ignition temperatures vary regionally, and ignition temperatures are not available for allregions in which coal is mined.

[499: Table 5.2.2]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


105 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

CommitteeStatement:

Update extract table A.5.2.2 from NFPA 61 to 2017 edition. Delete material on explosion severity and ignition severitysince those terms are no longer used in industry.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


106 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 48-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. A.5.4.3.2 ]

A.5.4.3.2

Testing a worst-case (finest) particle size distribution will provide a conservative determination of the combustibility of the material.(See Table A.5.4.4.1.)

Table A.5.4.3.2 Standard Test Methods to Determine Explosibility Properties

Method Property

ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum IgnitionEnergy of a Dust Cloud in Air

Minimum ignition energy (MIE) of dust cloud in air

ASTM E1491, Standard Test Method for MinimumAutoignition Temperature of Dust Clouds

Minimum ignition temperature ( Tc ) of dust clouds

ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of DustClouds

Maximum explosion pressure ( P max ), rate and maximum rate of

pressure rise ( dP/dt ), and explosion severity ( K St )

ASTM E1515, Test Method for Minimum ExplosibleConcentration of Combustible Dusts

Minimum explosible concentration (MEC)

ASTM E2021, Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface IgnitionTemperature of Dust Layers

Minimum ignition temperature ( Tc ) of dust layers

ASTM WK1680, Test Method for Limiting Oxygen (Oxidant)Concentration of Combustible Dust Clouds

Limiting oxygen concentration (LOC)




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Deletes table A.5.4.3.2 since the table is duplicated in A.5.4.4.1. Text cross-references table A.5.4.4.1.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.


107 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Stevenson, Bill

The opening paragraph is confusing and self contradictory. Either published data is permitted to be used or it is not. If the opening sentencesare correct then the closing one is not. And if the data in these tables can't be used, why include it in the document?


108 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 56-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. A.5.4.4.1 ]


109 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

A.5.4.4.1

Refer to Table A.5.4.4.1 for standard test methods for determining explosibility characteristics of dusts that are used for the DHA,performance-based design method risk assessments, and hazard management of combustible dusts.

Table A.5.4.4.1 Standard Test Methods to Determine Explosibility Properties

Method Property

ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum IgnitionEnergy of a Dust Cloud in Air

Minimum ignition energy (MIE) of dust cloud in air

ASTM E1491, Standard Test Method for Minimum AutoignitionTemperature of Dust Clouds

Minimum ignition temperature (Tc) of dust clouds

ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of DustClouds

Maximum explosion pressure (Pmax), rate and maximum rate of

pressure rise (dP/dt), and explosion severity (KSt)

ASTM E1515, Test Method for Minimum ExplosibleConcentration of Combustible Dusts

Minimum explosible concentration (MEC)

ASTM E2021, Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface IgnitionTemperature of Dust Layers

Minimum ignition temperature (Tc) of dust layers

ASTM WK1680 E2931 , Test Method for Limiting Oxygen(Oxidant) Concentration of Combustible Dust Clouds

Limiting oxygen concentration (LOC)

ASTM E2021, Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Ignition Temperature of Dust Layers, uses a constant temperature hot plate toheat the dust on one side only. Routine tests use a 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) thick layer, which might simulate a substantial build-up of duston the outside of hot equipment. However, since the ignition temperature normally decreases markedly with increased dust layerthickness, the method allows layer thickness to be varied according to the application.

ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, is used to determine the MIE for any givenfuel concentration. The method uses the lowest energy, stored by a capacitor, that when released as a spark will ignite dust cloud–oxidant mixtures. By testing a range of concentrations, the lowest MIE is determined for the optimum mixture. Observed MIE andMIE values are highly sensitive to the test method, particularly the spark electrode geometry and characteristics of the capacitordischarge circuit. Dust ignition energy standard ASTM E2019 describes test methods in current use that have been found to yieldcomparable results; however, it is a “performance standard,” whereby the methodology adopted must produce data within theexpected range for a series of reference dusts.

ASTM E1491, Standard Test Method for Minimum Autoignition Temperature of Dust Clouds, is used to determine the dust cloudautoignition temperature (AIT). The test involves blowing dust into a heated furnace set at a predetermined temperature. The dustconcentration is systematically varied to find the lowest temperature at which self-ignition occurs at ambient pressure, known as theminimum autoignition temperature (MAIT). A visible flame exiting the furnace provides evidence for ignition. Four different furnacesare described in ASTM E1491 (0.27-L Godbert-Greenwald Furnace, 0.35-L BAM Oven, 1.2-L Bureau of Mines Furnace, and 6.8-LBureau of Mines Furnace). Each yields somewhat different MAIT data, the largest deviations occurring at the greatest MAIT values.However, the lower AIT range is of more practical importance and here the agreement is better (for example 265 ± 25°C for sulfur).

ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, is used to determine the pressure and rate of pressure rise forsuspended combustible dusts. The measurement of the explosibility parameters (Pmax and KSt) requires the reproducible

generation of a near homogeneous dust cloud inside a containment vessel of known volume. The explosibility parameters Pmax(maximum pressure) and KSt (maximum rate of pressure rise of the worst-case concentration times the cube root of the test volume)

are obtained from such measurements. The determination of a Pmax and KSt for a material first establishes that it is an explosible

dust. A bench scale test method in ASTM E1226 involves a vessel at least 20 L in volume in which a dust cloud is formed using thedischarge of a small cylinder of compressed air. After a prescribed time delay, the highly turbulent dust cloud is ignited using a strongignition source of known energy. Pressure is monitored versus time by appropriate transducers and expressed as pressure, Pex,

and pressure rate of rise, dP/dtex. Dust concentration is varied to determine the maxima of both parameters. Particle size and

moisture are other variables that must be considered. Particle size should be less than 75 μm ensuring a design that is conservative.

The primary use of the test data Pmax and KSt is for the design of explosion protection systems: venting, suppression, and isolation.

Vent designs provide a relief area that will limit damage to the process equipment to an acceptable level. The required vent area iscalculated using equations from NFPA 68 and requires knowledge of the process — volume, temperature, operating pressure,design strength, vent relief pressure — and of the fuel, Pmax and KSt. Suppression is the active extinguishment of the combustion

and again limits the explosion pressure to an acceptable level. Suppression designs require similar process and hazard data in orderto determine the hardware requirements such as size, number, and location of containers, detection conditions, and the final orreduced explosion pressure. Isolation — the prevention of flame propagation through interconnections — requires the same processand hazard data to determine hardware needs and locations. The extent of testing should depend on what the scenario orevaluation such as explosion venting for a dust collector would require KSt and Pmax.

Published data can be used for preliminary assessment only; they should not be used for design. While some materials arewell-characterized, tables with explosibility properties often lack specific information such as particle size; therefore, it isrecommended that literature values that do not provide particle size information be used with extreme caution. NFPA 61, NFPA 499,NFPA 68, and NFPA 484 have lists of combustible and explosible metals and dusts that are used for guidance or as informationalreferences only and are not to be used for design purposes. Composition, particle size and distribution, and moisture content are thethree factors known to strongly influence test results. It is recognized that some industries have historical data on the same material;therefore, the frequency, number, and extent of testing where historical data exists should be made by informed judgment. Theowner/operator assumes the risk of using data from tables and historical data. A person or team performing a DHA should scrutinizeand make informed judgments about historical and published data and its applicability to the process.



110 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM



Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updates title of ASTM test method. E2931 is now final.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.


111 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


112 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 1-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. A.8.4.2.1.2 ]

A.9.4.2.1.2

For information on selection of housekeeping methods, refer to 2.2.4 of FM 7-76, Section 2.2.4, Operation andMaintenance Prevention & Mitigation of Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires . Other factors can be considered in the selection ofa housekeeping method, such as the effectiveness of or compatibility of certain methods with the material. Cleaning should becomprehensive and should remove dust from the facility versus relocating it to other surfaces in the area. For the purposes of thisstandard, the concern is about dust that either propagates flame or that can be dispersed by credible disturbances. Foraccumulations that are not easy to disperse, the fire hazard should be considered (see Section 8.8 ) .

The accumulation of a dust layer on a surface that is subject to heating (e.g., the surface of a bearing, an electrical motor, or aheater) could insulate the surface, increasing the surface temperature above the equipment “T” rating, to the point where the dustcould self-ignite and smolder.

Housekeeping of a dust layer that has self-ignited and started smoldering could result in full-ignition as the dust disperses during thehousekeeping process. The burning dust could damage the housekeeping equipment, ignite a larger dust cloud or a flammable gasrelease in the area, or initiate smoldering in other dust layers. Before performing housekeeping of a dust layer on a potentially hotsurface, the dust should be tested to confirm whether self-ignition and smoldering has initiated. Note that housekeeping of dustlayers settling after a dust flash-fire should also consider the dust to be smoldering.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee has added additional annex material to clarify the objectives and methods of housekeeping. This is toaddress concerns raised by the submitter of Public Input no. 9 concerning the relocation of dust during housekeepingactivities.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.


113 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


114 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 34-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. A.8.5.7.3.1 ]

A.8.4.7.3.1

The user should expect that activities such as pouring, unloading, and transferring dusts can lead to the development of an ignitibleatmosphere above the settled material in the receiving vessel.

Refer to NFPA 77 for recommendations for how to safely ground personnel.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Adds reference to NFPA 77 in Annex material

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.


115 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


116 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


A.9.10.1

All plant personnel, including management, supervisors, and maintenance and operating personnel, should be trained to participatein plans for controlling plant emergencies.

The emergency plan should contain the following elements:

(1) A signal or alarm system

(2) Identification of means of egress

(3) Minimization of effects on operating personnel and the community

(4) Minimization of property and equipment losses

(5) Interdepartmental and interplant cooperation

(6) Cooperation of outside agencies

(7) The release of accurate information to the public

Emergency drills should be performed annually by plant personnel. Malfunctions of the process should be simulated and emergencyactions undertaken. Disaster drills that simulate a major catastrophic situation should be undertaken periodically with thecooperation and participation of public fire, police, and other local community emergency units and nearby cooperating plants.

Specialized training for the public fire department(s) and industrial fire brigades can be warranted due to facility specific hazardswhere the methods to control and extinguish a fire can be outside of their normal arena of traditional fire fighting.(See OSHA’spublication, Firefighting Precautions at Facilities with Combustible Dust , for additional information. )




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Add a reference to OSHA's document on Firefighting Precautions at Facilities with Combustible Dust.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.


117 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


118 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 18-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. B.3.4.3 ]

B.3.4.3

The DHA should classify locations into three general categories:

(1) Not a hazard

(2) Maybe Might be a hazard

(3) Deflagration hazard

This will help the owner/operator prioritize management of the hazards. Additionally, it will identify the locations where moreinformation is necessary before a definitive determination can be made.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Changed to clarify original intent of material.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.


119 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


120 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 37-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. B.4.1 ]

B.4.1

This example is intended to provide the user with some of the deliberation that can be used in performing a DHA. It is not intendedto cover all the methods, situations, and processes that might be encountered in facilities that handle combustible particulate solids.In particular, it does not account for fire hazards that are independent of deflagration hazards. Refer to Figure B.4.1 for the processused in this example.

Figure B.4.1 An Example Process. (Source: J. M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.)




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This revision clarifies the scope and intent of the example DHA in Annex B. It is not intended to address fire hazards thatare independent of deflagration hazards.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice


121 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


122 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 19-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. B.4.5.2.4 ]

B.4.5.2.4

Are there competent igniters available? Yes. In addition to the igniters identified in B.4.5.1.4, a number of ignition mechanisms areintroduced by the fan, including the following examples: .

(1) Overheated drive bearings (especially the inboard bearing) due to bearing failure from lack of proper lubrication, fatigue, wear,etc.

(2) Fan impeller/wheel imbalance caused by material accumulation on the blades, bearing failure, wear, etc. (which can result insparking by housing contact)




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The examples provided are proven problems that can occur with a material handling (or other industrial) fans. This furtherassists the reader in understanding the scope of the DHA.

ResponseMessage:

Public Input No. 40-NFPA 652-2016 [Section No. B.4.5.2.4]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.


123 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


124 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


B.4.5.2.5

What hazard management is in place? (See B.4.5.1.5.) It is difficult to apply hazard management to a material conveyance fan.Usually hazard management is applied downstream from the fan. Other hazard management methods would include vibrationmonitoring (either by personnel on a regular basis or by a monitoring device), temperature monitoring of the drive bearings (bypersonnel or monitoring device) and amperage monitoring of the drive motor (generally, for a properly operating fan, amperage isdirectly related to the air mass flow — the higher the amperage, the more air mass flow).




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Such methods of hazard management have been proven successful in monitoring fan performance and indicatingproblems before they become a significant hazard.

ResponseMessage:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.


125 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


126 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 21-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. B.4.5.7 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]

While the drawing shows these as separate components, most mills have an integral discharge fan. Most mills in this kind of processrequire air flow through the mill as part of the milling process. This is typically provided by a fan package (positive or negativepressure, depending upon type of system), which can be integral to the mill or a separate device.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The previous annex indicated that integral fans are typical for such mills, while it is the submitter's experience, with literallyhundreds of such devices and systems, that the fan package is separate nearly all the time and that integral fans are theexception and not the norm.

ResponseMessage:

Public Input No. 42-NFPA 652-2016 [Section No. B.4.5.7 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.


127 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


128 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


B.4.5.7.1

Is the particulate deflagrable (explosible)? It depends. What is the target product particle size? If the mill has 1⁄4 in. (6.35 mm)screens, then the unit is receiving large particles and making them less large, but they're still too large to be considered adeflagrable (explosible) particulate. But there are also included fines. If the mill is reducing the particulate down to 250 μ a finepowder , then all the particulate would probably be considered deflagrable (explosible). Therefore, the determination Determinationof whether the particulate in the mill is typically deflagrable is based on the range of particle size exiting the mill. It is usuallynecessary to submit this material for a go/no-go screening test to determine if the mixture exiting the mill is capable of propagating adeflagration flame front. However, there is a potential that the concentration of fines inside the mill might be higher than theconcentration in the product stream due to recirculation within the mill.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Combustible dust is almost always present in a mill, especially with an integral fan package.

Response Message:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.


129 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Ural, Erdem A.

Replace all occurrences of deflagrable with explosible. 652 now has a definition for explosible. Neither 652 nor Webster's dictionary definedeflagrable.


130 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


B.4.5.7.2

Is the particulate suspended in air? Yes. Inside the mill and its associated fan, the particulate is in continuous air suspension.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Fan influence needs to be considered.

Response Message:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.


131 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


132 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


B.4.5.7.3

Is there sufficient concentration to support deflagration? This again depends on the test data and a sieve analysis. Because mostmills produce fines during the milling process (due to remilling, turbulence, accumulations on internal surfaces, wear, etc.) and it isdifficult to be assured that the fines concentrations do not exceed the MEC, it is best to assume sufficient combustible dusts arepresent. However, some low-speed mills (e.g., shredders) designed to produce only large particles might allow a determination froma sieve analysis and/or testing. Remember that while a sieve analysis is not a definitive criterion for identifying whether a particulateis deflagrable (explosible), it is a very valuable tool for identifying changes that have occurred in the process that signify a change inthe hazard associated with the particulate. It is a management of change and safety assessment audit tool.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Mills are not 100% efficient and the milling process is not truly steady-state as it will vary over time (due to materialvariations, maintenance levels, wear, etc.). Thus, a sieve analysis is only representative of the time it was taken and does nottake into account the changes that occur rapidly and/or over time.

ResponseMessage:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.


133 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


134 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


B.4.5.7.4

Are there competent igniters available? Most mills are capable of igniting the material being milled. If tramp metal gets into theprocess stream, it is likely that the particulate will exit burning, at the very least there is a potential for ignition. Integral or externalfan packages also represent additional hazards similar to the fan described in B.4.5.2.4 .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The fan package, whether integral to the mill or separate, represents a significant hazard that should also beconsidered.

Response Message:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.


135 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


136 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


B.4.5.7.5

What hazard management is in place? Are there magnetic separators or traps on the infeed to the mill? Is there deflagrationsuppression and isolation on the mill? Even if the mill is designed to be strong enough to withstand a deflagration within (many are),the deflagration flame front will exit the mill via the infeed and outfeed. What provisions are in place to isolate the mill from the rest ofthe process? In addition, any integral or external (in-line) fan package would require management such as that discussed inB.4.5.2.5 .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The fan package needs to be included in the discussion. Assumes the recommended changes of a previoussubmission for B.4.5.2.5.

Response Message:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.


137 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


138 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


B.4.5.8.4

Are there competent igniters available? Yes. This duct is immediately downstream from the mill or fan package , either of which canbe a source of ignition.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The fan which creates the air flow the the mill must also be considered.

Response Message:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.


139 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


140 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


B.4.5.9.2

Is the particulate suspended in air? This depends on the type, make, and model of the screens used. Some agitate the materialmore aggressively than others. An analysis of the operating screens for the presence of a dust suspension should be undertaken todetermine if this criterion is satisfied.

Most screens leak dust into the building interior, and that issue has to be addressed. Without proper dust collection, these devicescan emit combustible dusts into the surrounding area.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Without dust collection (usually only on the inlet and outlet portions of the screen to assure the screening process is notinhibited), even with good enclosure of the screen and screening process, dust emissions can and most likely will occur. Thisis especially true over time when flex connections, seals, etc., tend to wear, etc.

ResponseMessage:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.


141 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


142 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 55-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. D.1.2.5 ]

D.1.2.5 ASTM Publications.


ASTM E582, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy and Quenching Distance in Gaseous Mixtures, 2007.

ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2012.

ASTM E1491, Standard Test Method for Minimum Autoignition Temperature of Dust Clouds, 2006 (2012).

ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, 2007.

ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, 2003 (2007).

ASTM E2021, Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Ignition Temperature of Dust Layers, 2009.

ASTM E2079, Standard Test Methods for Limiting Oxygen (Oxidant) Concentration in Gases and Vapors, 2013.

ASTM WK1680 E2931 , Test Method for Limiting Oxygen (Oxidant) Concentration of Combustible Dust Clouds, (draft underdevelopment) 2013 .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updates title of ASTM test method. ASTM E2931 is now final.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.


143 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


144 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


D.1.2.9 U.S. Government Publications.

U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

DOE Handbook, Primer on Spontaneous Heating and Pyrophoricity, DOE-HDBK-1081-1984.

OSHA 1910.119, “Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals.”

OSHA, Firefighting Precautions at Facilities with Combustible Dust , 2013.

Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910.119, “Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals.”

Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910.146, “Permit-Required Confined Spaces.”




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Adds document to list of informational references.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.


145 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Zalosh, Robert G.


Ural, Erdem A.

Should we not add NEP?


146 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


D.2 Informational References.

Cozzani, V. and Salzano, E. (2004), “The quantitative assessment of domino effects caused by overpressure Part I. Probitmodels,” J. Hazardous Materials, v. A107, pp. 67-80.

Davis, S., Hinze, P., Hansen. O., and van Wingerden, K. (2003) “Does your facility have a dust problem: Methods for evaluatingdust explosion hazards,” J Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, v. 24, pp. 837-846.

Holbrow, P., Andrews, S. and Lunn, G. (1996), “Dust Explosions in Interconnected Vented Vessels,” J. Loss Prevention in theProcess Industries, v. 9, pp. 91-103.

Holbrow, P., Lunn, G. and Tyldesley. A. (1999) “Dust explosion protection in linked vessels: guidance for containment and venting,”J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, v. 12, pp. 227-234.

Kosinski, P., and Hoffman, A. (2006) “An investigation of the consequences of primary dust explosions in interconnected vessels,”J. Hazardous Materials, v. A137, pp. 752-761.

Lunn, G., Holbrow, P., Andrews, S. and Gummer, J. (1996) “Dust explosions in totally enclosed interconnected vessel systems,” J.Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, v. 9, pp. 45-58.

Matsuda, T., Toyonaga, K., Nozima, Y., Kobayashi, M., Shimizu, T. (1982), “Some observations on dust explosibility in a pneumatictransport system”, Journal of Powder & Solids Technology, 6:4, p. 22-28

Roser, M. (1998), “Investigation of dust explosion phenomena in interconnected process vessels”, PhD thesis, LoughboroughUniversity

Taveau, J., “Myths and Realities of Dust Explosion Propagation in Pipes and Conveying Systems”, Process Safety Progress (to bepublished)

Valiulis, J., Zalosh, R., and Tamanini, F.,(1999) “Experiments on the Propagation of Vented Dust Explosions to ConnectedEquipment,” Process Safety Progress, v. 18, pp. 99-100.

van der Vort, M, Klein, A, de Maaijer, M., van den Berg, A., van Deursen, J., Versloot, N. (2007) “A quantitative risk assessmenttool for the external safety of industrial plants with a dust explosion hazard,” J Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, v. 20, pp.375-386.

van Wingerden, K. and Alfert, F. (1992) “Dust Explosion Propagation in Connected Vessels,” VDI Betichte, Nr 975, 507.

Vogl, A., (1996) “Flame Propagation in Pipes of Pneumatic Conveying Systems and Exhaust Equipment,” Process SafetyProgress, v. 15, pp. 216-226.

Vogl, A. and Radant, S. (2001) “Explosion propagation through thin pipes,” FSA Project 05- 9903, VDI Report 1601 (in German).



References.docx For staff use.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Additional references have been added to provide additional information for FR-60.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned


147 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


148 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

First Revision No. 66-NFPA 652-2016 [ Section No. D.3 ]

D.3 References for Extracts in Informational Sections.

NFPA 61 , Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities , 2017 edition.


NFPA 484 , Standard for Combustible Metals , 2018 edition.

NFPA 499 , Recommended Practice for the Classification of Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous (Classified) Locations forElectrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas , 2017 edition.





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updates edition date for extracted material in first draft

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

2 Not Returned

29 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Christman, Tom

Floyd, Larry D.

Affirmative All

Baker, Todd E.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Chastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Davis, Randal R.

Drake, Mark W.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Hansen, Dale C.


149 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM

Hanson, Shawn M.

Hart, Paul F.

House, David M.

Koch, James F.

McLelland, Bruce

Myers, Timothy J.

Norris, Jim E.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pedersen, Niels H.

Reason, Jason P.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Sallman, Steve

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Statham, Denise N.

Stevenson, Bill

Taylor, Robert D.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


150 of 150 11/1/2016 11:33 AM


1.1.6.2 *

Metal-containing mixtures shall be permitted to be excluded from this standard and protected according to NFPA 654, Standard forthe Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, orother NFPA industry- or commodity-specific standard,if by testing it is established that the mixture meets all of the following criteria:

(1) It has been demonstrated that mixture fires can be controlled safely and effectively with Class ABC fire-extinguishing agents.

(2) It has been demonstrated that mixture fires can be controlled safely and effectively with water.

(3) The material is not a UN Class 4.3 solid as tested using UN 4.3 water reactivity test methods.

(4) It has been demonstrated that the volume resistivity is greater than 1 M ohm-m. the Kst is below 150 and Pmax is below 8 bar

(5) It is not a metal/metal-oxide mixture (e.g., thermite).


The intent of the standard is not clear as to why resistivity is a characteristic that could exclude a dust from 484. If this is not removed then the intent should be explained in the appendix. I would think that Kst and Pmax would be a better indicator for exclusion from this standard. We encounter many dusts that are produced from metal cutting on laser and plasma tables along with abrasive blasting and flame and arc spraying that have low Kst and Pmax values. These dusts are mixtures that rarely display the combustible and explosive characteristics of the pure metals. Yet industry ends up treating them as pure metals and applying 484 at great expense when the other standards would adequately control the hazards. Industry needs better guidance with respect to mixtures with metal in them.


Submitter Full Name: MICHAEL WALTERS

Organization: CAMFIL FARR AIR POLLUTION CONT

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-4 for revisions to section 1.1.6.2. The committee has added additional annex text to clarify the provisions of this section(where the provisions of 484 do not apply to a mixture). The committee has retained the language in this provision regardingresistivity as it play an important role with metal dust. 484 is meant to be more stringent than 652 or 654.


1 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM


1.1.6.2*

Metal-containing mixtures shall be permitted to be excluded from this standard and protected according to NFPA 654, Standard forthe Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, orother NFPA industry- or commodity-specific standard,if by testing it is established that the mixture meets all of the following criteria:



(3) The material is not a UN Class 4.3 solid as tested using UN 4.3 water reactivity test methods.

(4) It has been demonstrated that the volume resistivity is greater than 1 M ohm-m.



I have used this section to exclude a dust mixture from the 484 standard. Sentences 1 and 2 should have some explanatory material to define what an acceptable demonstration is. Can the demonstration tests be performed in house or should they be done by a third party?




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: See FR-4 for revisions to section 1.1.6.2. The committee has added additional annex text to clarify the provisions of this section(where the provisions of 484 do not apply to a mixture). The committee has retained the language in this provision regardingresistivity as it play an important role with metal dust. 484 is meant to be more stringent than 652 or 654.


2 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 484-2015 [ Chapter 2 ]

Chapter 2 Referenced Publications

2.1 General.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this standard and shall be considered part of therequirements of this document.

2.2 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 1, Fire Code , 2015 edition.

NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2013 edition.

NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2013 edition.

NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2015 edition.

NFPA 33, Standard for Spray Application Using Flammable or Combustible Materials, 2011 edition.

NFPA 34, Standard for Dipping, Coating, and Printing Processes Using Flammable or Combustible Liquids, 2011 edition.


NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code, 2015 edition.

NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2013 edition.


NFPA 70® , National Electrical Code®, 2014 edition.

NFPA 80, Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives, 2013 edition.

NFPA 86, Standard for Ovens and Furnaces, 2015 edition.

NFPA 91, Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids, 2010edition.

NFPA 101® , Life Safety Code®, 2015 edition.

NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction, 2015 edition.

NFPA 221, Standard for High Challenge Fire Walls, Fire Walls, and Fire Barrier Walls, 2015 edition.

NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2013 edition.

NFPA 505, Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use, Conversions,Maintenance, and Operations, 2013 edition.

NFPA 600, Standard on Industrial Fire Brigades, 2010 edition.

NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling ofCombustible Particulate Solids, 2013 edition.

NFPA 704, Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response, 2012 edition.

NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems, 2014 edition.

NFPA 1081, Standard for Industrial Fire Brigade Member Professional Qualifications, 2012 edition.

NFPA 2112, Standard on Flame-Resistant Garments for Protection of Industrial Personnel Against Flash Fire, 2012 edition.

NFPA 2113, Standard on Selection, Care, Use, and Maintenance of Flame-Resistant Garments for Protection of Industrial PersonnelAgainst Short-Duration Thermal Exposures from Fire, 2015 edition.

NFPA 5000® , Building Construction and Safety Code®, 2015 edition.

2.3 Other Publications.

2.3.1 ANSI ASME Publications.

American National Standards Institute, Inc., 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, ASME Internatioanl, Two Park Avenue , New York, NY10036 10016-5990 .

ANSI/ ASME B31.3, Process Piping Design , 2010 2014 .

ANSI/ISA 2.3.2 ISA Publications.

The International Society of Automation, 67 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. 12277, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

ISA 84.00.01 Functional Safety: Safety Instrumental Systems for the Process Industry Sector–Part 2, 2004.


3 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

2.3. 2 3 ASTM Publications.


ASTM E 11 E11 , Standard Specification for Wire Woven Wire Test Sieve Cloth and Test Sieves for Testing Purposes , 20092013 .

ASTM E 136 E136 , Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C, 2012.

ASTM E 176 E176 , Standard Terminology of Fire Standards, 2010 2014c .

ASTM E 1226 E1226 , Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2012a .

ASTM E 1515 E1515 , Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts , 2007 2014 .

ASTM E 2019 E2019 , Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, 2007 2003, Reapproved 2013 .

ASTM E 2931 E2931 , Standard Test Method for Limiting Oxygen (Oxidant) Concentration of Combustible Dust Clouds, 2013.

ASTM F 1002 F1002 , Standard Performance Specifications Specification for Protective Clothing for Use by Workers Exposed toSpecific Molten Substances and Related Thermal Hazards, 2006 2015 .

2.3. 3 4 UN Publications.

United Nations Publications, Room DC2-853, 2 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017.

UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Manual of Tests and Criteria,5th edition, 2009.

2.3. 4 5 Other Publications.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 2003.

Eckoff, Rolf K., Dust Explosions in the Process Industries, third edition, 2003. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., Oxford, UK.

Explosibility of Metal Powders, Report of Investigations (RI) 6516,1964, BuMines, U.S.Department of the Interior, Washington DC,1965.

GESTIS-DUST-EX, Combustion and Explosion Characteristics of Dusts (database), —Institut für Arbeitsschutz der DeutschenGesetzlichen Unfallversicherung, Germany (IFA).


NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2013 edition .

NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2014 edition .

NFPA 91, Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids,2010edition 2015 .

NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling ofCombustible Particulate Solids,2013 edition 2017 .

NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2014 edition .

NFPA 5000® , Building Construction and Safety Code®, 2015 edition .


Referenced updated SDO addresses, standard names, and editions.



Public Input No. 2-NFPA 484-2015 [Chapter J]


Submitter Full Name: Aaron Adamczyk


Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Sun Mar 22 22:04:15 EDT 2015

Committee Statement


Statement: Referenced updated SDO addresses, standard names, and editions -

Will review and update at second draft.


4 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

Public Input No. 6-NFPA 484-2015 [ Section No. 3.1 ]

3.1 General.

The definitions contained in this chapter shall apply to the terms used in this standard. Where terms are not defined in this chapter orwithin another chapter, they shall be defined using their ordinarily accepted meanings within the context in which they are used.Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, shall be the source for the ordinarily accepted meaning.



NFPA_484_Public_Input_Comments.docx Suggestions for the Definitions section of NFPA 484


Consistency in application of a standard is essential for the harmonization with international standards as well as local (other NFPA) standards relating to dusts and other solid particulates. Clarification of the definitions is the first step towards a common and consistent approach.


Submitter Full Name: SHERYL BIHLER

Organization: ZONE SAFE SOLUTIONS INC

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: The committee has reviewed the definitions in Chapter 3 with the goal of correlation with NFPA 652 and the other combustibledust documents. These public inputs were considered during this review. See the first revisions in Chapter 3 for specific changesto the definitions used in this document.


5 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

NFPA 484 Public Input Comments 3.1 General. The definitions contained in this chapter shall apply to the terms used in this standard. Where terms are not defined in this chapter or within another chapter, they shall be defined using their ordinarily accepted meanings within the context in which they are used. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, shall be the source for the ordinarily accepted meaning. Comment: Consistency in definitions is essential for a repeatable and reliable implementation of the requirements of every standard. Instead of maintaining isolation through different terminology and definitions of similar words, I recommend starting with the international definitions (IEC 60050-426) followed by those within the NFPA 70 document and defining only those which are necessary for this particular standard. Consistency between the various standards and documents will only assist the reader and inspector. Recommended changes: “3.1 General. For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions in NFPA 70 and the following apply. NOTE Additional definitions applicable to explosive atmospheres can be found in IEC 60050-426.” 3.3.6.1* Combustible Metal Dust. A combustible particulate metal that presents a fire or explosion hazard when suspended in air or the process specific oxidizing medium over a range of concentrations, regardless of particle size or shape. Comments: The definition is not consistent with other NFPA standards. Recommended changes: “3.3.6.1 Combustible Metal Dust. A combustible metallic particulate solid that presents a fire or deflagration hazard when suspended in air or some other oxidizing medium over a range of concentrations, regardless of particle size or shape.” 3.3.12 Dust. See Combustible Metal Dust, 3.3.6.1. Comment: By referencing 3.3.6.1, the definition of Dust implies that only Combustible Metal Dusts exist. This is highly inconsistent with all other definitions of the word “Dust”. I highly recommend utilizing the international definitions as a starting point to minimize confusion and further enhance the use of this standard as a basis for international requirements. Recommended changes: “3.3.12 Dust. A particulate solid which settle out of the atmosphere under their own weight but may remain suspended in air for some time. Includes dust and grit as defined in ISO 4225.” 3.3.21 Hot Work. Any work involving burning, spark-producing, welding, or similar operations that is capable of initiating fires or explosions. Comment: The hazard of hot work is the generation of an ignition source.

Recommended changes: “3.3.21 Hot Work. Any work activity involving open flames, burning, spark-producing, welding or similar operations which may be capable of generating an ignition source. “ 3.3.23.2* Pyrophoric Material. A chemical with an auto-ignition temperature in air at or below 54.4°C (130°F). [5000,2015] Comment: There are two different auto-ignition temperatures (AIT) with solid particulates – one for a layer of dust and the other for a cloud suspended in air. It is essential that the AIT be specific with each definition – and that both AITs be identified on MSDS wherever possible. Recommended changes: “3.3.23.2 Pyrophoric Material. A solid chemical material with an auto-ignition temperature of a cloud suspended in air at or below 54.4C (130F).” 3.3.24 Media Collector. A bag house or a filter-type cartridge collector used for collecting dust. Comment: Other NFPA standards define a Dust Collector or an Air-Material Separator. Consistency is needed – again. Recommended changes: “3.3.24 Media Collector. A collector designed to separate the conveying air from the material being conveyed. Also referred to as a Dust Collector or an Air-Material Separator.” 3.3.38 Screening Test. For the purposes of this standard, a test performed to determine whether a material, product, or assembly, (a) exhibits any usual fire or explosion related characteristics, (b) has certain expected fire or explosion related characteristics, or (c) is capable of being categorized according to the fire or explosion characteristic in question. [ASTM E 176, 2010 Modified] Comment: One also uses a screen to determine the size of a particle – noted in the definition of “Fines” and related definitions. If the material is being “screened” for fire and deflagration characteristics, I propose the definition be changed to “Fire and Deflagration Characteristic Test” or “Material Properties Test” to better describe the intent of the definition. In addition, I would propose that characteristics are either related to fire and explosion or not; that the adjectives “usual” and “certain” add a level of interpretation and means of inconsistent application. The definitions of Fire and Explosion Related characteristics should also be defined and included in this standard, or in a related standard. How is the reader to understand which material characteristics are related to fires and explosions and which are not? Recommended changes: “3.3.38 Material Properties Test

A test or series of tests performed on a material to determine whether or not the material, product, or assembly, (a) exhibits any fire or explosion related characteristics, or (b) is capable of being categorized according to the fire or explosion characteristic in question. 3.3.40* Sponge. Metal after it has been won from the ore but before it is melted. Comment: My understanding of a sponge is a device which may retain liquids. This definition doesn’t seem to follow the common use of the word including the Webster’s dictionary. The phrase “won from the ore” needs further explanation – so that inspectors and other non-process experts can understand the definition. I cannot propose changes as I have zero idea as to what is trying to be conveyed.


Dry Type Dust Collectors

Dry dust collectors such as cyclones or anything else that is not a media collector.


The dust collection section of the standard is confusing because "dry type dust collectors" are not differentiated adequately from media type collectors.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: The committee has reviewed the definitions in Chapter 3 with the goal of correlation with NFPA 652 and the other combustibledust documents. These public inputs were considered during this review. See the first revisions in Chapter 3 for specific changesto the definitions used in this document.


6 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM


4.1.4 Application of This Document.

4.1.4.1

Only those specific forms of combustible metals, powders, dusts, and alloys of those materials that can be documented throughaccepted testing, and shown in that form not to satisfy the conditions and definitions of combustibility and explosibility, shall qualifyfor exclusion from the requirements of this document.

4.1.4.2

Wherever combustibility can be shown to exist in these materials, the full scope and requirements of this document shall apply.

4.1.4.3

Wherever the documentation necessary for compliance with 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 is lacking, the requirements of this document shallapply.


The exclusions listed in section 1.1.6.2 should be moved to this section. There is a lot of confusion in industries that that produce metal containing mixtures. These mixtures usually don't display the combustible and explosible properties of their parent metals. Industries need better clarification as to when to apply 484 with respect to dust collection.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement


Statement: The committee has added material referring the reader to Section 1.1.6, the requirements for mixtures, in an effort to clarify thissection. The committee may update the flow chart in Chapter 1 to further clarify the scope of the document at second draft.


7 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM


4.1.6

Forms of combustible metal dust (CMD) that have been evaluated as noncombustible shall be required to be re-evaluated whenevera change in manufacture, processing, handling, or storage conditions creates a modified form that might exhibit the characteristic ofcombustibility.



NFPA_484-Clause4.docx Recommendations for a more formal approach


It is clear that this recommended practice is not widely enforced. By highlighting the potential changes and recommending a formal approach to any program implemented, the reader will be better able to convince upper management of the importance of following this document.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: The material that the submitter is proposing is already covered in Section 4.1.5 and as annex material in A.4.2.1 and A.4.2.2.


8 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

NFPA 484 – Section 4 comments and suggestions. 4.1.6 Forms of combustible metal dust (CMD) that have been evaluated as noncombustible shall be required to be re-evaluated whenever a change in manufacture, processing, handling, or storage conditions creates a modified form that might exhibit the characteristic of combustibility. Comments: This re-evaluation implies that the combustion properties and characteristics do not change over time or atmospheric conditions. I would highly recommend a note to further push the reader to periodically have the materials at their facility tested. Recommended changes: “4.1.6 Forms of combustible metal dust (CMD) that have been evaluated as noncombustible shall be required to be re-evaluated whenever a change in manufacturer, processing, handling, or storage conditions creates a modified form that might exhibit the characteristic of combustibility. NOTE Atmospheric conditions such as humidity, air pressure, oxygen concentration and the like have been shown to affect the characteristics of combustibility and should not be discounted as potential reasons for re-evaluation of the material.” 4.2.1 Representative samples and components of metal-containing mixtures shall be collected and identified. Comments: The selection and collection of the samples should be documented. There should exist a sampling, collection and testing plan for each process or facility to ensure adequate internal oversight is maintained throughout the life of the facility. Recommended changes: “4.2. Basic Material Characterization. A formal plan shall be documented which describes the material characterization methodology, parameters tested for, collection and identification means, sampling schedule and locations, and other pertinent details relating to the facility and processes involved. This plan shall be periodically reviewed for adequacy and ability to highlight potential dangerous changes in the facility, processes and material handling procedures.”


6.3.1.4

The special hazards associated with metals in a combustible form and in contact with water shall be considered in the selection,design, and installation of automatic sprinkler systems.



NFPA_484-Clause6.docx

Reorganization and wording changes to Clause 6 - which is mainly addressed in duplication by NFPA 654.


Unnecessary duplication of requirements and/or the reduction of potential conflicts between the various dust standards. See NFPA 654 - it addresses most of the contents of this standard already.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: The committee has addressed these concerns with revisions to Section 6.4.1, Emergency Response. The list of items in 6.4.1includes actions as well as information to be provided regarding the hazards of combustible metals.


9 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

NFPA 484 – Section 6 comments and suggestions. 6.3.1.4 The special hazards associated with metals in a combustible form and in contact with water shall be considered in the selection, design, and installation of automatic sprinkler systems. Comments: I find it interesting that no definitions are included related to the water compatibility of a material such as those found in NFPA 654. In reading through this entire clause, it seems to me that this entire section should be included in NFPA 654 and thus be eliminated from this document altogether. In fact, I have to ask the questions as to why there are so many dust-related standards to begin with. Can some not be incorporated into the others – by the use of consistent terminology and prescribed implementation techniques? This document should only highlight those aspects which are NOT ALREADY included in NFPA 654 instead of duplicating, and possibly conflicting with NFPA 654. 6.4.1 The following information shall be provided to the emergency responders for the safe handling of combustible metal fires: (3) Review safety data sheets (SDSs) for the involved products, and if available, contact those familiar with the product and hazards. Comments: First I was going to comment that the SDSs do not provide consistent information much less sufficient information. However, in reading through this entire clause, this is NOT a list of information to be provided to the emergency responders but the actions to which the emergency responders are expected to perform. Recommended changes: “6.4.1 The following information shall be provided to the emergency responders for the safe handling of combustible metal fires:

(1) Hazard risk assessment a. List of materials and metals in immediate vicinity b. Plant layout showing main areas and regions c. Layout showing surrounding facilities, etc d. Potential risks of continuing fire e. Explosion risk level f. Sources of material, metals, etc g. List of extinguishing agents available

(2) Locations of utility controls (water, gases, power, etc) (3) Safety data sheets (SDSs)

6.4.2 The following shall be taken into consideration by the emergency responders for the safe handling of combustible metal fires:

(1) Perform a size-up, evaluation, and identification of metals involved in the fire (2) Etc –as is written in existing standard”

The same problem exists with clause 6.5.2.4 – the list is not a list of INFORMATION to be provided by a list of cautions and possible reactions to be considered during the emergency preparedness plan.


7.3.1*

Fugitive dust shall not be allowed to accumulate to a level that obscures the color of the surface beneath it.



NFPA_484-Clause7.docx Change emphasis to elimination of fugitive dust instead of on housekeeping measures.


Cleaner working environments, fewer explosions and a lower exposure to injury by employees will be the result with an increased emphasis on the design, implementation and maintenance of dust collection systems instead of a focus on housekeeping measures.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Resolution: Much of the submission is material that is unenforceable and should be annex material. The submitter is encouraged to submitspecific revisions to the annex material for this Chapter.


10 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

NFPA 484 – Section 7 comments and suggestions. 7.3.1* Fugitive dust shall not be allowed to accumulate to a level that obscures the color of the surface beneath it. Comments. Most international standards specify a depth of not more than 5 mm. Recommended changes: “7.3.1 Fugitive dust shall not be allowed to accumulate to a depth of 5 mm or to a level that obscures the color of the surface beneath it, whichever is smaller.” 7.3.2* It shall be permissible to establish, in a building or room, an alternate housekeeping dust accumulation threshold based on a documented hazard assessment acceptable to the AHJ. Comments: It is essential that the documentation includes a comparison of the differences in explosion and fire risks due to the additional depth of combustible particulates. Auto-ignition temperatures change with the depth of the material as do the temperature rise of any equipment being covered by the solid particulates. These aspects shall be taken into consideration during the formal hazard assessment. Recommended changes: “7.3.2 It shall be permissible to establish, in a building or room, an alternate housekeeping dust accumulation threshold based on a documented hazard assessment which includes the following information:

(1) Maximum depth of material (2) Combustion characteristics of material at proposed depth (3) Establishment of AIT for layer of proposed depth (4) Confirmation of thermal rise for any equipment to be under the layer to a proposed depth (5) Identification of fire and explosion risks (6) Identification of fire and explosion consequences (7) Identification of measures to be put in place to maintain proposed depth

The hazard assessment shall be formal and acceptable to the AHJ.” 7.5.3 Due to the inherent hazards associated with the use of fixed and portable vacuum cleaning systems for finely divided combustible metal dust, special engineering consideration shall be given to the design installation, maintenance, and use of such systems. (see section 9.2). Comments: First, the description here should include the terminology listed in this standard. It is presumed that “Fines” is the appropriate term to be used in place of “finely divided combustible metal dust”. Second, the use of compressed air blowing mechanisms gives rise to additional particulates being thrust into the air and/or settling onto horizontal surfaces which are difficult to reach and clean. This then gives rise to a far more dangerous facility than recognized (as can be seen with each dust explosion investigation documented by the Chemical Safety Board).

This entire section needs to consider that there are certified vacuum cleaners intended for use in dusty atmospheres that have been used without incident around the world. Recommended changes: “7.5.3 All movement of air activities pose a risk of static electricity discharge as well as the further dispersement of the combustible dusts into the atmosphere. The surrounding area may then become increasingly combustible during these activities and a thorough hazard assessment shall be documented. The use of vacuum cleaners shall be permitted as a primary means of cleaning as long as the vacuum cleaner has been shown to not pose an ignition risk when used with combustible metal dusts. Non-rated vacuum cleaners, or those intended for use with standard materials, shall only be used for removal of residual dust accumulations or accumulations too small to generate a combustible concentration in the area.” 7.6 Compressed Air Cleaning Requirements Comments: I would highly discourage the use of compressed air as a primary means of cleaning a dusty area since it is guaranteed to disperse the media into the atmosphere. There are too many instances where a combustible dust lands on horizontal surfaces which are out of reach and/or out of sight of the user, creating a very dangerous situation and increased potential for explosions if something happens to dislodge the dust. Compressed air, even at low pressures, can loft dusts into the air in sufficient quantities to create a combustible concentration. In addition, the potential for static electricity with common air compression systems is quite high as they typically use non-conductive hoses. The cautions currently in the standard around vacuum cleaners should also be addressed towards the compressed air systems for cleaning activities. Each system shall be shown to not generate a potential ignition source during use before it is deemed safe as a means of keeping the level of dust below the specified limits (5 mm or that specified in the hazard assessment for the facility). Recommended changes: Change the section to emphasize that both blowing and vacuuming with air pose a similar risk of ignition and that great care should be taken in the design, implementation and maintenance of dust collections systems over the reliance on housekeeping measures. Again, the results of investigations by the Chemical Safety Board clearly show the importance of preventing fugitive dusts as much as possible. This entire document should be emphasizing the design and maintenance requirements of dust collection systems instead of housekeeping measures.

Public Input No. 15-NFPA 484-2015 [ New Section after A.12.7.3.5.1 ]

A.12.7.4.5

CC Note: The Correlating Committee asks the TC to review the figures used in the section dealing with dust collection to select moreappropriate examples that are consistent with the provisions in the mandatory portion of the standard.



pc27.pdf NFPA 484 Public Comment 27 Hold


NOTE: This Public Input appeared as "Reject but Hold" in Public Comment No. 27 of the (A2014) Second Draft Report for NFPA 484 and per the Regs. at 4.4.8.3.1

This is a direction from the Correlating Committee on Combustible Dust in accordance with 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.


Submitter Full Name: CC on CMD-AAC

Organization: NFPA Correlating Committee on Combustible Dusts

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Jul 02 14:14:04 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

Resolution: The committee has deferred this to the second draft.


11 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

Public Comment No. 27-NFPA 484-2013 [ New Section after A.12.7.4.5 ]

CC Note: The Correlating Committee asks the TC to review the figures used in the section dealingwith dust collection to select more appropriate examples that are consistent with the provisions inthe mandatory portion of the standard.


This is a direction from the Correlating Committee on Combustible Dust in accordance with 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.


Submitter Full Name: CC on CMD-AAC

Organization: CC on Combustible Dusts

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon May 20 08:42:00 EDT 2013

Committee Statement

CommitteeAction:

Rejected but held

Resolution: The Committee has not had enough time to review the figure and come up with anupdated figure of these types of dust collectors. The Committee will revisit this issue in thenext edition.

Copyright Assignment

I, CC on CMD-AAC, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights incopyright in this Public Comment (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). Iunderstand and intend that I acquire no rights, including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in which thisPublic Comment in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Public Commentand that I have full power and authority to enter into this copyright assignment.

By checking this box I affirm that I am CC on CMD-AAC, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignmentand the terms and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronicsignature that will, upon my submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a handwritten signature

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittalsarchive.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/Terra...

1 of 1 7/2/2015 2:21 PM

Public Input No. 2-NFPA 484-2015 [ Chapter J ]

Annex J Informational References

J.1 Referenced Publications.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this annex are referenced within the informational sections of this standard and are notpart of the requirements of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2 for other reasons.

J.1.1 NFPA Publications.


NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2013 edition.

NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2015 edition.


NFPA 55, Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids Code, 2013 edition.

NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities, 2013 edition.



NFPA 70 ®, National Electrical Code ®, 2014 edition.

NFPA 77, Recommended Practice on Static Electricity, 2014 edition.


NFPA 101 ®, Life Safety Code ®, 2015 edition.

NFPA 120, Standard for Fire Prevention and Control in Coal Mines, 2010 edition.

NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction, 2015 edition.


NFPA 495, Explosive Materials Code, 2013 edition.

NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2013 edition.

NFPA 497, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Flammable Liquids, Gases, or Vapors and of Hazardous (Classified)Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas, 2012 edition.

NFPA 499, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous (Classified) Locations for ElectricalInstallations in Chemical Process Areas, 2013 edition.


NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions, 2012 edition.

NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities, 2012 edition.

NFPA 704, Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response, 2012 edition.

NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program, 2013 edition.

NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2013 edition.


Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials, 2013.

J.1.2 Other Publications.

J.1.2.1 AIChE Publications.

American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 120 Wall Street, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10005–4020.

Forbath, T. P. “Sodium Reduction Route Yields Titanium,” Chemical Engineering Progress, March 1958.

Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety, 3rd edition, 2008.

Powell, R. L. “Chemical Engineering Aspects of Titanium Metal Production,” Chemical Engineering Progress, March 1954, pp.578–581.

Britton, L.G., Avoiding Static Ignition Hazards in Chemical Operations, (Revised Edition), AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety,1999.

J.1.2.2 AMCA Publication.

Air Movement and Control Association, Inc., 30 West University Drive, Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1893.

AMCA Standard 99-0401 , “Classifications for Spark Resistant Construction,” AMCA Standards Handbook, 2010.


12 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

J.1.2.3 ANSI Publication.

American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036.

ANSI Z41, Personal Protection — Protective Footwear, 1999. (Superseded by ASTM F2412 & ASTM F2413)

J.1.2.4 ASM International Publications.

American Society of Metals, 9639 Kinsman, Materials Park, OH 44073-0002.

ASM Handbook, Volume 1: Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels, and High-Performance Alloys, 1990.

ASM Handbook, Volume 2: Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special-Purpose Materials, 1990.

J.1.2.5 ASTM Publications.


ASTM D 2240 D2240 , Standard Test Method for Rubber Property — Durometer Hardness, 1995 2005, reapproved 2010 .

ASTM E 136 E136 , Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C, 2011 2012 .

ASTM E 1226 E1226 , Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012A .

ASTM E 1515 E1515 , Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, 2007 2014 .

ASTM E 2019 E2019 , Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, 2007 2003, reapproved 2013 .

ASTM E 2079 E2079 , Standard Test Methods for Limiting Oxygen (Oxidant) Concentration in Gases and Vapors, 2007, reapproved2013 .

ASTM F 955 F955 , Standard Test Method for Evaluating Heat Transfer through Materials for Protective Clothing Upon Contact withMolten Substances, 2007 (2015E1) .

ASTM F 1002 F1002 , Standard Performance Specification for Protective Clothing for Use by Workers Exposed to Specific MoltenSubstances and Related Thermal Hazards, 2006 2015.

ASTM F 2621, Standard F2412, Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection, 2011.

ASTM F2413, Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective (Safety) Toe Cap Footwear, 2011.

ASTM F2621, Standard Practice for Determining Response Characteristics and Design Integrity of Arc Rated Finished Products inan Electric Arc Exposure, 2012.

J.1.2.6 Battelle Memorial Institute Publication.

Battelle Memorial Institute, Defense Metals Information Center, 505 King Ave., Columbus, OH 43201.

General Recommendations on Design Features for Titanium and Zirconium Production-Melting Furnaces, 1961.

J.1.2.7 BSI Publications.

British Standards Institution, 389 Chiswick High Road, London W4 4AL, United Kingdom.

BS 5958-1, Code of Practice for Control of Undesirable Static Electricity: General Considerations, 1991. (Superseded by BS PDCLC/TR 50404, Code of Practice for the Avoidance of Hazards Due to Static Electricity, 2003)

BS 6713-1/ISO 6184-1, Explosion Protection Systems, Part I: Method for Determination of Explosion Indices of Combustible Dusts inAir, 1986. (Withdrawn)

J.1.2.8 NEMA Publication.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1847 900 , Rosslyn Arlington , VA 22209.

Guide for Classification of All Types of Insulated Wire and Cable, 2001.

J.1.2.9 U.S. Bureau of Mines Publications.

U.S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh Research Center, Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0070.

RI 3722, “Inflammability and Explosibility of Metal Powders,” I. Hartmann, J. Nagy, and H. R. Brown, 1943.

RI 4835, “Explosive Characteristics of Titanium, Zirconium, Thorium, Uranium and Their Hydrides,” 1951.

RI 4879, “Recent Practice at the Bureau of Mines, Boulder City, Nev., Titanium Plant,” 1951.

RI 6516, “Explosibility of Metal Powders,” M. Jacobsen, A. R. Cooper, and J. Nagy, 1964.

J.1.2.10 U.S. Government Publications.

Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910.146, “Permit Required Confined Spaces.”

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261, Subpart (B).

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 100–199.

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1200 (DOT and HM-181).

Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 36, "Approved Requirements for Permissible Mobile Diesel-Powered TransportationEquipment."


13 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

J.1.2.11 Other Publications.

A.G. Dastidar, P.R. Amyotte, J. Going, and K. Chatrathi, “Flammability Limits of Dusts: Minimum Inerting Concentrations," ProcessSafety Progress, vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 1999.

Cashdollar, Kenneth, and Isaac Zlochower, “Explosion Temperatures and Pressures of Metals and Other Elemental Dust Clouds,”Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 20, issues 4-6, 2007.

Eisner, H. S., “Aluminum and the Gas Ignition Risk,”The Engineer, London, Feb. 17, 1967.

Gibson et al., “Fire Hazards in Chemical Plants from Friction Sparks Involving the Thermite Reaction,” Industrial ChemistsEngineering Symposium Series, No. 25, London, 1968.

“Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice,” 25th ed., Lansing, MI, American Conference of Governmental IndustrialHygienists, 2004. Available from Kemper Words Center, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240.

Janés, A., Marlair, G., Carson, D., Chaineaux, J., Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 25. pp. 524-534, 2012.

The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, “Hoeganaes Corporation: Gallatin, TN, Metal Dust Flash Fire andHydrogen Explosion,” 2011.

J.2 Informational References.

The following documents or portions thereof are listed here as informational resources only. They are not a part of the requirementsof this document.



NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems, 2013 edition.

Fire Protection Handbook, 20th ed., National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2008.

J.2.2 Aluminum Association Publications.

The Aluminum Association, 900 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20006. 1525 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA22209 .

AA TR-2, Recommendations for Storage and Handling of Aluminum Powders and Paste, 2000. (No longer Available)

AA F-1, Guidelines for Handling Aluminum Fines Generated During Various Aluminum Fabricating Operations, 2000.

J.2.3 New Mexico Engineering Research Institute Publications.

University of New Mexico, 901 University SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106-4339.

Lee, M. E., Stepetic, T. J., Watson, J. D., and Moore, T. A., Lithium Fire Suppression Study, Phase 3 (Medium-Scale), Naval UnderseaWarfare Engineering Station, Keyport, Washington, November 1989 (NMERI OC 90/10).

Moore, T. A., T. J. Stepetic, and R. E. Tapscott, Preliminary Environmental and Safety Evaluation of Large Scale Lithium Metal Fires,Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, Keyport, Washington, March 1989.


Bartknecht, W., “Explosions Pressure Relief,” Chemical Engineering Progress, 11th Loss Prevention Symposium, Houston, 1977.

Bartknecht, W., Exploseonen, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1979.

Bartknecht, W., “Report on Investigations on the Problem of Pressure Relief of Explosions of Combustible Dusts in Vessels,” StaubReinhalt, Luft, Vol. 34, No. 11, Nov. 1974, and Vol. 34, No. 12, Dec. 1974.

Bodurtha, F. T., Industrial Explosion, Prevention and Protection, New York: McGraw Hill, 1980.

“Prevention and Mitigation of Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires,” Loss Prevention Data Sheet 7-76, Factory Mutual ResearchCorp., Norwood, MA, 2009.

Donat, C., “Pressure Relief as Used in Explosion Protection,” Chemical Engineering Progress, 11th Loss Prevention Symposium,Houston, TX, 1977.

National Safety Council, Data Sheet 1-66, Lithium, National Safety Council, 1121 Spring Lake Dr., Itasca, IL 60143-3201.

Palmer, K. N., Dust Explosions and Fires, London: Chapman & Hall, 1973.

J.3 References for Extracts in Informational Sections.



Updated SDO names, addresses, standard names, numbers, and edition years.



Public Input No. 1-NFPA 484-2015 [Chapter 2] Updated SDO names, addresses, standard names, numbers, and edition years.



14 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

Submitter Full Name: Aaron Adamczyk


Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Mar 23 00:08:50 EDT 2015

Committee Statement


Statement: Updated SDO names, addresses, standard names, numbers, and edition years.

Review and update at second draft.


15 of 15 9/6/2016 2:55 PM

National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Technical Committee on Combustible Metals and Metal Dusts FROM: Kelly Carey, Project Administrator DATE: November 1, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 484 First Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2018)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot.

28 Members Eligible to Vote 3 Members Not Returned (Davis, Rosenberger, Young) 23 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions (w/ comment: Kong, Rodgers, Ural, Zalosh) 2 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (Rodgers, Ural) 0 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each revision.

To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an affirmative vote of 2/3 of ballots returned. See Sections 3.3.4.3.(c) and 4.3.10.1 of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.


Change order of Sections 6.4 [8.4] and 6.5 [8.5]. Emergency Preparedness should come before Emergency Responserequirements.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Sep 22 11:16:29 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee is changing the order of these sections as it believes that Emergency Preparedness should come beforeEmergency Response.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.

Rosenberger, Mark S.

Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom

Creswell, Gregory F.

Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli


1 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.

Thornton, Patrick A.

Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


2 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


The technical committee is changing the order of the beginning chapters of the document in order to align with the structureof NFPA 652. This is at the direction of the correlating committee, which directed all of the A2016 dust documents, NFPA 61,654, and 664, to do the same.



NFPA_484_revised_order_of_chapters_for_FR-61.xlsx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The technical committee is changing the order of the beginning chapters of the document in order to align with the structureof NFPA 652. This is at the direction of the correlating committee, which directed all of the A2016 dust documents, NFPA 61,654, and 664, to do the same.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom



3 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


Ural, Erdem A.

This item is not clear. Are we being asked to sustain the direction from the correlating committee, or are we being asked to vote on thechapter title shown as new? I did not know the correlating committee had the authority to direct technical committees.


4 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

NFPA 484 TOC ‐ Old versus new for lineup with 652

Chapter Title Chapter Title

1 Administration 1 Administration

2 Referenced Publications 2 Referenced Publications

3 Definitions 3 Definitions

4

Determination of the Combustibility or

Explosibility of a Metal, Metal Powder, or

Metal Dust 4 General

5 General 5

Determination of the Combustibility or

Explosibility of a Metal, Metal Powder, or

Metal Dust

6

Fire Prevention, Fire Protection, and

Emergency Response 6 Performance‐based design

7 Housekeeping 7 Dust Hazard Analysis

8 Control of Ignition Sources 8

Fire Prevention, Fire Protection, and

Emergency Response

9 Dust Collection 9 Housekeeping

10 Performance‐Based Design 10 Control of Ignition Sources

11 Dust Collection

Follow with all of the metals specific

chapters

Follow with all of the metals specific

chapters

old new


See the attached word file for the new chapter on Dust Hazard Analysis (DHA).



Chapter_7_Annex_Material.docx

Chapter_7_Hazard_Analysis.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee has added a new chapter on Dust Hazard Analysis (DHA). This is to align the requirements in thisdocument with the requirements for DHA in NFPA 652.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.


5 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Varga, Richard S.

Zimmerman, Stephen


Zalosh, Robert G.

As expressed by Sam Rodgers, I am concerned with the current wording of paragraph 7.2.1.2 because it can give readers the impressionthat a formal Dust Hazard Analysis is not needed for new or altered facilities. I am not voting Negative because I know this is not theCommittee's intent. Rather, I suggest the wording of 7.2.1.1 be changed to: New or altered operations and equipment shall be reviewed todetermine if they affect the Dust Hazards Analysis completed for the facility. This allows for a simple review of minor changes to operationsand equipment without allowing a misinterpretation that a formal Dust Hazards Analysis is not needed for the facility.


Rodgers, Samuel A.

The text permits the interpretation that unchanged, existing facilities will not require a DHA. I feel strongly that unchanged, existing facilitiesshould also perform and maintain a DHA. Note that 7.1.1 appears to have an extra verb "shall be meet". I recommend editorially correctingthis the "shall meet" to be parallel with related statements.

Ural, Erdem A.

Mr. Rodgers' concern is valid. Change Hazard Analysis to Hazards Analysis. Add sections 7.4 and 7.5 for solid metals and alkali metals.


6 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Annex Material for Chapter 7

A.7.1 Metals in a combustible form present three primary hazards, solids in combustible form (i.e. Chips, swarf, fines, ribbon, solids or alkali metals; Combustible Metal Dust; and Combustible Metal in a Molten form.

A. 7.1.4 It is not always possible or practical for existing facilities to be in compliance with the new provisions or a standard on the effective date of that standard. Therefore, “retroactivity” in 7.1.1 means that a plan should be established to achieve compliance within a reasonable timeframe.

A.7.2.1.3 One method by which this requirement can be satisfied is with a hazard analysis conducted in accordance with the methods outlined by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers’ Center for Chemical Process Safety in Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures.

To determine if a dust deflagration hazard exists, follow figure 4.4.1, Determination of Explosibility. A. 7.2.2.1 NFPA standards rely on the determination of “where an explosion hazard or deflagration hazard exists.” There are other physical and health hazards to consider such as toxicity, reactivity with water, and so forth that can be considered when conducting a DHA. The DHA should consider the four conditions that are required for a deflagration:

1. A combustible particulate solid of sufficiently small particle size to deflagrate 2. A combustible particulate solid suspended in air to deflagrate (or other oxidizing medium) 3. A combustion particulate solid suspension of sufficiently high concentration to deflagrate 4. A competent igniter applied to the suspension of combustible particulate solids where the

concentration is sufficient for flame propagation.

A deflagration leading to an explosion will occur whenever all four criteria occur within a compartment or container at the same time. Since gravity is a concentrating effect and we always assume an ignition source is present unless we can prove one cannot exist, even under conditions of equipment failure, this list reduces to:

1. A combustible particulate solid of sufficiently small particle size to deflagrate 2. A means for suspending the combustible particulate solid in air (or other oxidizing medium) 3. A sufficient concentration can be achieved

Most dust explosions occur as a series of deflagrations leading to a series of explosions in stages. While a single explosion is possible, it is the exception rather than the rule. Most injuries are the result of the “secondary” deflagrations rather than the initial event. Most “explosion” events are a series of deflagrations each causing a portion of the process or facility to explode. Primary deflagrations lead to secondary deflagrations, usually fueled by accumulated fugitive dust that has been suspended by the following:

1. Acoustic impulse waves of the initial, primary, deflagration 2. Entrainment by deflagration pressure front

The majority of the property damage and personnel injury is due to the fugitive dust accumulations within the building or process compartment. The elimination of accumulated fugitive dust is CRITICAL and the single most important criterion for a safe workplace. [652: A. 7.2.1] A.7.2.2.2 The qualified person who is leading or performing the DHA should be familiar with conducting a DHA. The qualified person should also be familiar with the hazards of combustible metals. Typically, a team performs a DHA. For some processes this team may be a little as two persons, or for larger and more complex processes, the team might require more than two persons. This team is made of a variety of persons whose background and expertise can include the following:

1. Familiarity with the process 2. Operations and maintenance 3. Process equipment 4. Safety systems 5. History of operation 6. The properties of the material 7. Emergency procedures

The individuals involved in the DHA could include facility operators, engineers, owners, equipment manufacturers, or consultants. [652: A.7.2.2]

A.7.2.3.1 (b) The hazard management document for all the areas of the process or facility compartment determined to be combustible dust hazards should include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Test reports 2. Drawings 3. Sizing calculations

Subsection 7.2.3.1 outlines the minimum steps of a dust hazards analysis. [652: A.7.3.1 (2)(b)]

A.7.2.3.3.1 This includes the process systems and ancillary equipment such as dust collection systems. Where multiple compartments present essentially the same hazard, a single evaluation might be appropriate. [652: A.7.3.3.1]

A.7.2.3.3.3 Each and every process component should be evaluated, including ducts, conveyors, silos, bunkers, vessels, fans, and other pieces of process equipment. Each point along the process should be described, and hazards at each point should be identified. Remedial measures for each hazard should be identified and documented. The means by which the hazard should be managed is then determined. The process and process equipment will often determine which option is most appropriate. (Refer to Annex B of NFPA 652 for an example of a process hazard analysis.)

A.7.2.3.4.2 Each and every facility compartment containing combustible metal particulate solids should be evaluated. The complete contents of the compartment should be considered, including hidden areas. Each area in the compartment should be described, and hazards at each point should be identified. Remedial measures for each hazard should be identified and documented. The means by which the hazard should be managed is then determined A.7.3.2.2 See A.7.2.2.2 A.7.3.3.1 (b) See A.7.2.3.1 (b)

A.7.3.3.3.1 See A.7.2.3.3.1 A.7.3.3.3.3 See A.7.2.3.3.1

Chapter 7 Hazard Analysis

7.1* General

7.1.1 Solid metal in a combustible form shall be meet the requirements of section 5.2

7.1.2 Combustible Metal Dusts shall meet the requirements of section 7.2

7.1.3 Molten Combustible metals shall meet the requirements of section 7.3

7.1.4* The requirements of Chapter 7 shall apply retroactively.

7.1.5 The design of the fire and explosion safety provisions shall be based on a hazard analysis of the

facility, the process, and the associated fire and explosion hazards.

7.2 Dust Hazard Analysis (DHA)

7.2.1 Responsibility

The owner/operator of a facility where materials that have been determined to be combustible or explosible in accordance with Chapter 4 are present in an enclosure shall be responsible to ensure a DHA is completed in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. [652: 7.1.1]

7.2.1.1 For existing processes and facility compartments that are undergoing modification, the owner/operator shall complete a DHA.

7.2.1.2 New and/or altered operations, equipment, and/or facilities shall be reviewed prior to operation for potential hazards.

7.2.1.3* The design of the fire and explosion safety provisions shall be based on a hazard analysis of the facility, the process, and the associated fire and explosion hazards.

7.2.1.4 The DHA shall be reviewed and updated at least every five years.

7.2.2 Criteria

7.2.2.1* Overview

The DHA shall evaluate the fire, deflagration, reactivity, and explosion hazards and provide recommendations to manage the hazards in accordance with Section 4.2. [652: 7.2.1]

7.2.2.2* Qualifications

The DHA shall be performed or led by a qualified person. [652: 7.2.2]

7.2.2.2.1 The DHA shall be signed off, prior to operation, by a cognizant authority at the facility. 7.2.2.3 Documentation The results of the DHA review shall be documented, including any necessary action items requiring change to the process materials, physical process, process operations, or facilities associated with the process. [652: 7.2.3]

7.2.2.3.1 The results of the hazard analysis shall be maintained for the life of the process.

7.2.3 Methodology

7.2.3.1 General. The DHA shall include the following: (1) Identification and evaluation of the process or facility areas where fire, flash fire, and explosion hazards exist (2) Where such a hazard exists, identification and evaluation of specific fire and deflagration scenarios shall include the following: (a) Identification of safe operating ranges (b) *Identification of the safeguards that are in place to manage fire, deflagration, and explosion events (c) Recommendation of additional safeguards where warranted, including a plan for implementation (3) Recommendations from the DHA shall be tracked to completion. [652: 7.3.1]

7.2.3.2 Material Evaluation The DHA shall be based on data obtained in accordance with Chapter 4 for material that is representative of the dust present. 7.2.3.3 Process Systems. 7.2.3.3.1*

Each part of the process system where combustible metal dust is present or where combustible metal particulate solids could cause combustible metal dust to be present shall be evaluated, and the evaluation shall address the following: (1) Potential intended and unintended combustible dust transport between parts of the process system (2) Potential fugitive combustible metal dust emissions into a building or building compartments. This includes powder and fugitive material as defined by this document. (3) Potential deflagration propagation between parts of the process system (4) Reactivity of the combustible metal.

7.2.3.3.2

Each part of the process that contains a combustible metal particulate solid and that can potentially include both of the following conditions shall be considered a fire hazard and shall be documented as such: (1) Oxidizing atmosphere (2) Credible ignition source

7.2.3.3.3*

Each part of the process that contains a sufficient quantity of combustible metal dust to propagate a deflagration and that can potentially include all the following conditions shall be considered a dust deflagration hazard and shall be documented as such: (1) Oxidizing atmosphere (2) Credible ignition source (3) Credible suspension mechanism

7.2.3.4 Building or Building Compartments

7.2.3.4.1

Each building or building compartment where combustible metal dust is present shall be evaluated. 7.2.3.4.1.1

Where multiple buildings or building compartments present essentially the same hazard, a single evaluation shall be permitted to be conducted as representative of all similar buildings or building compartments. [652: 7.3.4.1.1] 7.2.3.4.1.2

The evaluation shall address potential combustible metal dust migration between buildings or building compartments. 7.2.3.4.1.3

The evaluation shall address potential deflagration propagation between buildings or building compartments. [652: 7.3.4.1.3] 7.2.3.4.2*

Each building or building compartment that contains a combustible metal particulate solid and that can potentially include both of the following conditions shall be considered a fire hazard and shall be documented as such: (1) Oxidizing atmosphere (2) Credible ignition source 7.2.3.4.2.1

The evaluation of dust deflagration hazard in a building or building compartment shall include a comparison of actual or intended dust accumulation to the threshold housekeeping dust accumulation that would present a potential for flash-fire exposure to personnel or compartment failure due to explosive overpressure. [652: 7.3.4.2.1] 7.2.3.4.2.2

Threshold housekeeping dust accumulation levels and non-routine dust accumulation levels (e.g., from a process upset) shall be in accordance with this standard. 7.2.3.4.3

Each building or building compartment that contains a sufficient quantity of combustible metal dust to propagate a deflagration and that can potentially include all of the following conditions shall be considered a dust deflagration hazard and shall be documented as such: (1) Oxidizing atmosphere (2) Credible ignition source (3) Credible suspension mechanism [652: 7.3.4.3]

7.3 Molten Metal Hazard Analysis 7.3.1 Responsibility The owner/operator of a facility where combustible metals are present in a molten state shall be responsible to ensure a hazard analysis is completed in accordance with the requirements of this section.

7.3.1.1 For existing processes and facility compartments that are undergoing modification, the owner/operator shall complete a hazard analysis. 7.3.1.2 New and/or altered operations, equipment, and/or facilities shall be reviewed prior to operation for potential hazards 7.3.1.3 The hazard analysis shall be reviewed and updated at least every five years.

7.3.2 Criteria. 7.3.2.1 Overview. The hazard analysis shall evaluate the fire, reactivity, and explosion hazards and provide recommendations to manage the hazards in accordance with Section.4.2 7.3.2.2 Reactivity hazards shall include potential molten metal/water interactions. 7.3.2.2* Qualifications. The hazard analysis shall be performed or led by a qualified person. 7.3.2.2.1 Hazard analyses shall be signed off, prior to operation, by a cognizant authority at the facility.

7.3.2.3 Documentation. The results of the hazard analysis review shall be documented, including any necessary action items requiring change to the process materials, physical process, process operations, or facilities associated with the process. 7.3.2.3.1 The results of the hazard analysis shall be maintained for the life of the process. 7.3.3 Methodology. 7.3.3.1 General. The hazard analysis shall include the following: (1) Identification and evaluation of the process or facility areas where fire, reactivity, and explosion hazards exist (2) Where such a hazard exists, identification and evaluation of specific fire, reactivity, and deflagration scenarios shall include the following: (a) Identification of safe operating ranges (b) *Identification of the safeguards that are in place to manage fire, reactivity, deflagration, and explosion events (c) Recommendation of additional safeguards where warranted, including a plan for implementation (3) Recommendations from the hazard analysis shall be tracked to completion.

7.3.3.1.1 Hazard analyses shall be signed off, prior to operation, by a cognizant authority at the facility.

7.3.3.2 Material Evaluation. 7.3.3.2.1 The hazard analysis shall be based on data that is representative of the molten metal present. 7.3.3.3 Process Systems. 7.3.3.3.1* Each part of the process system where combustible metal in a molten form is present shall be evaluated, and the evaluation shall address the following: (1) Potential intended and unintended runout of combustible molten metal between parts of the process system

(2) Potential runout of combustible molten metal from the process system into a building or building compartments. This includes potential interaction with water in the building or building compartment (3) Potential explosion impacts on other parts of the process system. (4) Reactivity of the combustible molten metal. 7.3.3.3.2 Each part of the process that contains a combustible metal in molten form and that can potentially include both of the following conditions shall be considered a fire hazard and shall be documented as such: (1) Oxidizing atmosphere (2) Combustible loading in the melting area 7.3.3.3.3* Each part of the process that contains a sufficient quantity of combustible molten metal to propagate a fire or explosion and that can potentially include all the following conditions shall be considered a fire or explosion hazard and shall be documented as such: (1) Oxidizing atmosphere (2) Combustible loading in the melting area (3) Water or other reactive materials in the melting area 7.3.3.4 Building or Building Compartments. 7.3.3.4.1 Each building or building compartment where combustible metal in a molten form is present shall be evaluated. 7.3.3.4.1.1 Where multiple buildings or building compartments present essentially the same hazard, a single evaluation shall be permitted to be conducted as representative of all similar buildings or building compartments. [652: 7.3.4.1.1]

7.3.3.4.1.2 The evaluation shall address potential combustible molten metal flow between buildings or building compartments. 7.3.3.4.1.3 The evaluation shall address potential fire or explosion propagation between buildings or building compartments. [652: 7.3.4.1.3]

7.3.3.4.2 Each building or building compartment that contains a combustible molten metal and that can potentially include both of the following conditions shall be considered a fire hazard and shall be documented as such: (1) Oxidizing atmosphere (2) Combustible loading in the melting area (3) Water or other reactive materials in the melting area


The committee is adding a new chapter on nanometals and is solicting comments from the public on these proposedrequirements.



New_Nanometals_Chapter.docx Chapter 12

Annex_Material_for_Nanometals_Chapter.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee is adding a new chapter on nanometals and is solicting comments from the public on these proposedrequirements.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.


7 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Varga, Richard S.

Zimmerman, Stephen


Ural, Erdem A.

X.1.3 is not enforcible. Needs a quantitavie criterion for similarity.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Add complete References for NFPA 484 Annex Paragraph A12.2.1.1 as follows. …..are described and quantified in Chapter 4, Lerner, et al,and Chapter 3, Nazarenko, et al, of Gromov et al, Metal Nanopowders : Production, Characterization, and Energetic Application, 2014.Corresponding References for Annex J: Gromov, Alexander A., and Teipel, Ulrich, eds. Metal Nanopowders : Production, Characterization,and Energetic Application. Somerset, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014. M. Lerner, A Vorozhtsov, Sh. Guseinov, and P.Storozhenko, “Metal Nanopowders Production,” Chapter 4 in Gromov et al, 2014. Olga Nazarenko, Alexander Gromov, Alexander Il'in, juliaPautova, and Dmitry Tikhonov, “Electroexplosive Nanometals,” Chapter 3 in Gromov et al, 2014.


8 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

X. Nanometals Powders

X.1* General Provisions . X.1.1 Processing, handling, and storage of nanometals powders shall follow the requirements of this Chapter in addition to those fire and explosion prevention and mitigation measures described in Chapters 6 through 18.

X.1.2* The provisions of this chapter are applicable to mixtures of nanometal powder particles and micrometer size metal particles where the nanometal powder particles are greater than 0.1% by weight.

X.1.3 If testing with a specific mixture and particle size distribution shows that the explosibility characteristics are similar to the micrometer metal particles, the provisions of this Chapter do not apply.

X.2 Nanoparticle Production Processes

X.2.1 Nanometal Production Using Exploding Electrical Wires

X.2.1.1* Fire, flash fire, and explosion hazards associated with exploding electrical wire

production of nanometals shall be assessed and documented accounting for the energy

associated with the exploding wires.

X.2.1.2 Fire and explosion protection measures for this process shall be established based

on the hazard analysis and the other pertinent requirements of this standard.

X.2.1.3 The power supply and electrical circuits used for exploding electrical wire

production shall be in accordance with the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

X.2.1.4 If an inert gas atmosphere is used in the chamber containing the exploding wires,

control of the maximum allowable oxygen concentration shall be in accordance with

NFPA 69-2014, Standard for Explosion Prevention Systems, Chapter 7, Deflagration

Prevention by Oxidant Concentration Reduction.

X.2.1.5 If a hydrogen atmosphere is used in the chamber containing the exploding wires,

the generation and use of hydrogen shall be in accordance with NFPA 2, Hydrogen

Technologies Code.

X.2.2 Nanometal Production with Plasma Based Processes

X.2.2.1* Fire and explosion hazards associated with nanometal production by

recondensation after metal immersion in a plasma shall be assessed and documented

accounting for potential ignitions due to exposure to plasma thermal loads and ionized

and aerosol particles .

X.2.2.1.1 Fire and explosion protection measures for this process shall be established

based on the hazard analysis and the other pertinent requirements of this standard.

X.2.2.2 Plasma generation equipment internal surfaces shall be inspected after each

production run to check for combustible metal particulate condensation and

accumulation, and shall be cleaned when such condensation and accumulation is

observed.

X.2.2.3 Particulate cooling, capture and encapsulation equipment shall be operated per

X.3 requirements.

X.2.3. Nanometal Synthesis by Chemical Reduction of Salt Solutions and Colloidal

Dispersions

X.2.3.1* Fire and explosion hazards associated with nanometal production by chemical

reduction methods shall be assessed and documented accounting for the chemical

reactivity hazards and the flammability properties of all reactants and reaction products.

X.2.3.2 Fire and explosion protection measures for this process shall be established based

on the hazard analysis and the other pertinent requirements of this standard.

X.2.3.3* Fire protection for solutions with flammable or combustible liquid solvents shall

be in accordance with requirements in NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids

Code.

X.2.4 Biochemical Production of Nanometals

X.2.4.1* Fire and explosion hazards associated with nanometal production by

biochemical processes shall be assessed and documented accounting for the biochemical

reactivity and flammability hazards and possible needs for biological or microbiological

containment.

X.2.4.1.1 Fire and explosion protection measures for this process shall be established

based on the hazard analysis and the other pertinent requirements of this standard.

X.3 Equipment Design and Operation

X..3.1* Nanometal transport in pipes, ducts and conveyors shall use an inert gas at an

oxygen concentration below the LOC in accordance with NFPA 69. The LOC shall be

measured specifically for sub-micron particulate of the primary metal transported.

X.3.2. Equipment with inerting for nanometals shall use an inert gas atmosphere in

accordance with NFPA 69 and a LOC based on testing with an applicable nanometal

sample.

X.3.3. Explosion suppression and isolation systems for nanometal explosion protection

shall be in accordance with NFPA 69 and shall have been demonstrated to be effective

for pertinent nanometals.

X.3.4* Equipment containing nanometals that are intended to withstand explosion

pressures shall have a pressure containment capability in accordance with NFPA 69 and a

value of Pmax determined for a nanometal similar in composition and size to the

nanometal in the equipment.

X.3.5 Equipment and operations for application of nanometal coatings with flammable or

combustible solvents will be protected in accordance with applicable requirements in

NFPA 34 or NFPA 33

Commented [BZ1]: Were these paragraphs deleted because of Committee discussion at Oak Ridge? I don’t remember. Do we want an exception for pipes/ducts below a certain diameter and length?

X.4 Housekeeping

X.4.1 The documented housekeeping program required for all combustible metals shall

include special provisions for preventing personnel exposure to nanoparticles during

cleaning. The location and extent of potential nanoparticle deposits shall be described in

the program documentation. The likelihood of ignition during cleaning shall also be

documented.

X.4.2 Personnel responsible for cleaning nanoparticle deposits shall be equipped with

suitable Personal Protective Equipment determined as part of the documented

housekeeping program.

Annex Material for Nanometal Chapter

A.X.1 Nanometal powder provisions in this chapter and the rest of this standard are limited to fire, flash

fire, and explosion protection considerations. Nanometal powder toxicity considerations, applicable to

both combustible and noncombustible nanometals, are outside the scope of this document.

A.X.1.2 A mixture of 99 weight percent micron scale iron powder with 1 percent of 35‐nanometer

titanium powder has been ignited by electrostatic charge generation in a plastic hose (Wu, et al. “Flame

phenomena in nanogrinding process for titanium and iron,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process

Industries, 27, (2014) pp 114‐118).

A.X.2.1.1 Equipment used and energy generated during exploding wire production of nanometals are described and quantified in the following references.

M. Lerner, A Vorozhtsov, Sh. Guseinov, and P. Storozhenko, Metal Nanopowders Production, Chapter 4, and Olga Nazarenko et al. Electroexplosive Nanometals, Chapter 3, in Gromov, Alexander A., and Teipel, Ulrich, eds. Metal Nanopowders : Production, Characterization, and Energetic Application. Somerset, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014.

A.X.2.2.1 Figure A.X.2.2.1 is a process flow block diagram for nanometal production via plasma exposure heating and subsequent recondensation. Plasma temperatures required for commercial nanometal production of most metals are about 6000 K for a immersion period of 0.5 to 1 millisecond, and about 5000 K for longer exposure periods. Reference for text and figure is: M. Lerner, A Vorozhtsov, Sh. Guseinov, and P. Storozhenko, Metal Nanopowders Production, Chapter 4, in Gromov, Alexander A., and Teipel, Ulrich, eds. Metal Nanopowders : Production, Characterization, and Energetic Application. Somerset, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014.

A.X.2.3.1 Chemical process hazard evaluation methods and associated engineering process design methods are described in the following references.

Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd Edition, AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety, 2008.

Guidelines for Engineering Design for Process Safety, 2nd Edition, 2012, AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety.

Reactants with special flammability, reactivity, and stability properties include sodium borohydride and hydrogel matrices containing iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, silver, and ruthenium. (“Soft and flexible hydrogel templates of different sizes and various functionalities for metal nanoparticle preparation and their use in catalysis,” N. Sahiner, Progress in Polymer Science, v 38, 2013.)

A.2.3.3 Examples of flammable and combustible liquid reactants and solvents used for nanometal synthesis are dimethylformamide for silver nanoparticles, toluene used in gold nanoparticle production, and ethanol for synthesis of nanoparticles of palladium, platinum, gold, and rhodium. Reference: “Nanometals: Formation and color,” L.M. Liz-Marzan, Materials Today, February 2004.

.X.2.4.1 Biosynthesized metallic nanoparticles have advantages of reduced environmental impact, biochemical stability and biocompatibility that render them attractive for antimicrobial applications, imaging applications, catalytic applications such as reduction of environmental contaminants, and electrochemical applications including sensing.(“Applications of biosynthesized metallic nanoparticles: a review,” Schrofel, A. et al., Acta Biomaterialia, v 10, n 10, p 4023-42, Oct. 2014.

Bioprocess safety guidelines are available in the following reference.

Guidelines for Process Safety in Bioprocess Manufacturing Facilities, CCPS (Center for Chemical Process Safety) November 2010.

A. X.3.1 Nanograde aluminum and titanium have been shown to auto ignite during conveying in ducts with elbows. (Wu et al, “Study on safe air transporting velocity of nanograde aluminum, iron, and titanium,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23 (2010) pp 308-311). LOC values for these and other nanometals can be lower than the LOC values currently in NFPA 69 and table A.1.1.3 (b) in this standard ,which are based on micrometer size dust samples. (Mittal, 2013).

A. X.3.4* Although explosibility tests with several nanonmetals have resulted in Pmax values similar to those obtained with samples of larger particulate of the same material (Krietsch et al, 2015), tests with other nanomaterials such as magnesium have produced the highest Pmax values with nanometals of about 400 nanometer diameter (Mittal, 2014). Some of the testing with successful measurements of Pmax for nanomaterials required special sample injection methods to avoid pre-ignition during sample transport into the test chamber.


The committee is adding the attached material on objectives to the General Chapter. Note that this will be Chapter 4 in therevised outline but is currently Chapter 5.




Text_for_FR-64_Objectives.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This material is based on the work of a task group formed by the correlating commitee to align the objectives betweenall of the dust documents.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.


9 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


10 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

A.4.2.2

Given the fast acting nature of flash fire, deflagration, and explosions, the stated Life Safety Objective

recognizes the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of protecting occupants in the immediate proximity of

the ignition. Thus, the stated objective is to protect occupants not in the immediate proximity of

ignition. However, all available practices should be employed to ensure the safety of all persons both

near and far from the ignition. An example of this might be the standard’s prescriptive exception relative

to the less than 8 ft3 (0.2 m3) air‐material separator not requiring protection; however, the intent of the

objective is to consider the effect of deflagration to occupants in the immediate area of the small air‐

material separator and mitigate this hazard if possible. Likewise, the standard has not defined

“immediate proximity” in that this could mean within just feet of the hazard or within the same building

or structure and leaves that judgment to the user. The intent of the objective is to employ all available

and reasonable protection, techniques, and practices to protect all occupants understanding that it

might not always be achievable. [652: A.4.2.1.1]

A.4.2.4

Other stakeholders could also have mission continuity goals that will necessitate more stringent objectives as well as more specific and demanding performance criteria. The protection of property beyond maintaining structural integrity long enough to escape is actually a mission continuity objective. The mission continuity objective encompasses the survival of both real property, such as the building, and the production equipment and inventory beyond the extinguishment of the fire. Traditionally, property protection objectives have addressed the impact of the fire on structural elements of a building as well as the equipment and contents inside a building. Mission continuity is concerned with the ability of a structure to perform its intended functions and with how that affects the structure's tenants. It often addresses post-fire smoke contamination, cleanup, and replacement of damaged equipment or raw materials. [652: A.4.2.2] A.4.2.5

Adjacent compartments share a common enclosure surface (wall, ceiling, floor) with the compartment of fire or explosion origin. The intent is to prevent the collapse of the structure during the fire or explosion. [652: A.4.2.3] A.4.2.5 (b) See A.10.2.4.1 A.4.2.8

Usually a facility or process system is designed using the prescriptive criteria until a prescribed solution is found to be infeasible or impracticable. Then the designer can use the performance-based option to develop a design, addressing the full range of fire and explosion scenarios and the impact on other prescribed design features. Consequently, facilities are usually designed not by using performance-based design methods for all facets of the facility but rather by using a mixture of both design approaches as needed.

Annex Material for Nanometal Chapter

A.X.1 Nanometal powder provisions in this chapter and the rest of this standard are limited to fire, flash

fire, and explosion protection considerations. Nanometal powder toxicity considerations, applicable to

both combustible and noncombustible nanometals, are outside the scope of this document.

A.X.1.2 A mixture of 99 weight percent micron scale iron powder with 1 percent of 35‐nanometer

titanium powder has been ignited by electrostatic charge generation in a plastic hose (Wu, et al. “Flame

phenomena in nanogrinding process for titanium and iron,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process

Industries, 27, (2014) pp 114‐118).

A.X.2.1.1 Equipment used and energy generated during exploding wire production of nanometals are described and quantified in the following references.

M. Lerner, A Vorozhtsov, Sh. Guseinov, and P. Storozhenko, Metal Nanopowders Production, Chapter 4, and Olga Nazarenko et al. Electroexplosive Nanometals, Chapter 3, in Gromov, Alexander A., and Teipel, Ulrich, eds. Metal Nanopowders : Production, Characterization, and Energetic Application. Somerset, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014.

A.X.2.2.1 Figure A.X.2.2.1 is a process flow block diagram for nanometal production via plasma exposure heating and subsequent recondensation. Plasma temperatures required for commercial nanometal production of most metals are about 6000 K for a immersion period of 0.5 to 1 millisecond, and about 5000 K for longer exposure periods. Reference for text and figure is: M. Lerner, A Vorozhtsov, Sh. Guseinov, and P. Storozhenko, Metal Nanopowders Production, Chapter 4, in Gromov, Alexander A., and Teipel, Ulrich, eds. Metal Nanopowders : Production, Characterization, and Energetic Application. Somerset, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014.

A.X.2.3.1 Chemical process hazard evaluation methods and associated engineering process design methods are described in the following references.

Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd Edition, AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety, 2008.

Guidelines for Engineering Design for Process Safety, 2nd Edition, 2012, AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety.

Reactants with special flammability, reactivity, and stability properties include sodium borohydride and hydrogel matrices containing iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, silver, and ruthenium. (“Soft and flexible hydrogel templates of different sizes and various functionalities for metal nanoparticle preparation and their use in catalysis,” N. Sahiner, Progress in Polymer Science, v 38, 2013.)

A.2.3.3 Examples of flammable and combustible liquid reactants and solvents used for nanometal synthesis are dimethylformamide for silver nanoparticles, toluene used in gold nanoparticle production, and ethanol for synthesis of nanoparticles of palladium, platinum, gold, and rhodium. Reference: “Nanometals: Formation and color,” L.M. Liz-Marzan, Materials Today, February 2004.

.X.2.4.1 Biosynthesized metallic nanoparticles have advantages of reduced environmental impact, biochemical stability and biocompatibility that render them attractive for antimicrobial applications, imaging applications, catalytic applications such as reduction of environmental contaminants, and electrochemical applications including sensing.(“Applications of biosynthesized metallic nanoparticles: a review,” Schrofel, A. et al., Acta Biomaterialia, v 10, n 10, p 4023-42, Oct. 2014.

Bioprocess safety guidelines are available in the following reference.

Guidelines for Process Safety in Bioprocess Manufacturing Facilities, CCPS (Center for Chemical Process Safety) November 2010.

A. X.3.1 Nanograde aluminum and titanium have been shown to auto ignite during conveying in ducts with elbows. (Wu et al, “Study on safe air transporting velocity of nanograde aluminum, iron, and titanium,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23 (2010) pp 308-311). LOC values for these and other nanometals can be lower than the LOC values currently in NFPA 69 and table A.1.1.3 (b) in this standard ,which are based on micrometer size dust samples. (Mittal, 2013).

A. X.3.4* Although explosibility tests with several nanonmetals have resulted in Pmax values similar to those obtained with samples of larger particulate of the same material (Krietsch et al, 2015), tests with other nanomaterials such as magnesium have produced the highest Pmax values with nanometals of about 400 nanometer diameter (Mittal, 2014). Some of the testing with successful measurements of Pmax for nanomaterials required special sample injection methods to avoid pre-ignition during sample transport into the test chamber.


Throughout the document, add the word "consequential" before the term "release of hazardous materials".




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This term is used in defining the objectives of the document. The committee wants to make clear that one of the objectives ofthe document is protection against a release of hazardous materials that is the result of a fire of explosion. Releases ofhazardous materials that are not caused by a fire or explosion are beyond the scope of NFPA 484.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.


11 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


12 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


5.1 Owner's Obligation.

The facility owner/operator shall be responsible for ensuring that the facility and the systems handling combustible particulate solidsare designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of this standard and NFPA 652.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This adds material on owner's obligation from 654 and 664 to this standard. This is in response to a correlating committeenote on the A2016 dust documents. This statement makes clear what the obligation of the facility owner is with regard tocompliance with this standard and with NFPA 652.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli


13 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


14 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

First Revision No. 1-NFPA 484-2015 [ Section No. 1.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]

This standard shall apply to provides requirements for the production, processing, finishing, handling, recycling, storage, and use ofall metals and alloys that are in a form that is capable of combustion or explosion.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The TC modified the scope of the document to be consistent with the structure of the scope statement in NFPA 61. This scopestates the "standard provides requirements...". This in response to the correlating committee notes that were made to theA2016 documents. The correlating committee is working towards aligning the scope statements in all of dust document to beconsistent.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.


15 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


16 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


1.1.2.1

This standard also shall apply to provides requirements for operations where metal or metal alloys are subjected to processing orfinishing operations that produce combustible powder or dust.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli


17 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


18 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

First Revision No. 3-NFPA 484-2015 [ Section No. 1.1.6 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]

This standard shall apply to provides requirements for mixtures that contain metals exhibiting combustion characteristics of metalscovered by this standard. (See 5.1.4 for additional information on testing and characterization.)




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.


19 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


20 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


1.1.6.2*

Metal-containing mixtures that also contain combustible nonmetal dusts shall be permitted to be excluded from this standard andprotected according to NFPA 652 and NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from theManufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids , or other NFPA industry- or commodity-specificstandard, if by testing it is established that the mixture meets all of the following criteria:



(3) The material is not a UN Class 4.3 solid as tested using UN Class 4.3 water reactivity test methods.

(4) It has been demonstrated that the volume resistivity is greater than 1 M ohm-m.








Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This adds NFPA 652 as an applicable standard that must be met and clarifies that this section applies to metal-containingmixtures that contain combustible metal and combustible non-metal dusts. Annex material has been added to provide furtherclarification as to when 484 does not apply to mixtures of metal and non-metal dusts.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.


21 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


22 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


Additional annex material for A.1.1.6.2

Metal-containing mixtures where the primary hazard is from combustible metals and the mixture behaves as a metal are covered by NFPA 484. Mixtures where the primary hazard is from non-metals and the mixture behaves as a non-metal may be covered by other commodity specific standards. The criteria in items 1, 2 and 3 determine whether the mixture can be extinguished using conventional fire-fighting measures commonly prescribed in other standards. Item 4 examines the volume resistivity of the mixture. Metal mixtures present additional ignition hazards associated with conductivity, such as arcing at electrical contacts and a propensity for static discharges. Item 5 addresses thermite reactions which are not covered by other standards. Additional analysis such as Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) and Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA) in air may be warranted to determine if the primary hazards of a mixture are due to combustion of metals or combustion of non-metals in the mixture.


1.1.9

This standard shall apply to laboratories that handle, or use, or store more than 0.23 kg (1⁄2 lb) of alkali metals or 0.907 kg (2 lb)aggregate of other combustible metals, excluding alkali metals.

1.1.9.1

Applicability thresholds for storage in laboratories shall follow the appropriate occupancy classification as designated by NFPA 45and threshold quantities per Table 1.1.11 .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Sep 10 14:44:22 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The purpose of this revision is to eliminate conflicts between this document and NFPA 45.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli


23 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


24 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


1.4 Conflicts.

1.4.1

Where a requirement specified in this industry-specific standard differs from a requirement specified in NFPA 652 , therequirement in this standard shall be permitted to be used instead.

1.4.2

Where a requirement specified in this standard specifically prohibits a requirement specified in NFPA 652 , the prohibition in thisstandard shall be applied.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The language on conflicts is added to provide clarity to the user of the document. This language is from NFPA 61 and isbeing added to address correlating committee notes made to the A2016 dust documents.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.


25 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


26 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

First Revision No. 6-NFPA 484-2015 [ New Section after 1.5 ]

1.6 Units and Formulas.

1.6.1 SI Units.

Metric units of measurement in this standard shall be in accordance with the modernized metric system known as the InternationalSystem of Units (SI).

1.6.2* Primary and Equivalent Values.

If a value for a measurement as given in this standard is followed by an equivalent value in other units, the first stated value shallbe regarded as the requirement.

1.6.3 Conversion Procedure.

SI units shall be converted by multiplying the quantity by the conversion factor and then rounding the result to the appropriatenumber of significant digits.







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Material was added to correlating with NFPA 652

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.


27 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


28 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Annex Material for FR #6

A. 1.x.2 A given equivalent value could be approximate.

First Revision No. 10-NFPA 484-2015 [ Chapter 2 ]

Chapter 2 Referenced Publications

2.1 General.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this standard and shall be considered part of therequirements of this document.

2.2 NFPA Publications.


NFPA 1, Fire Code, 2015 2018 edition.

NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2013 2017 edition.

NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2013 2016 edition.

NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2015 2018 edition.

NFPA 33, Standard for Spray Application Using Flammable or Combustible Materials, 2011 2016 edition.

NFPA 34, Standard for Dipping, Coating, and Printing Processes Using Flammable or Combustible Liquids, 2011 2015 edition.


NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code, 2015 2018 edition.



NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code®, 2014 2017 edition.

NFPA 80, Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives, 2013 2016 edition.


NFPA 91, Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids,2010 2015 edition.

NFPA101®, Life Safety Code®, 2015 2018 edition.

NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction, 2015 2018 edition.


NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2013 2017 edition.

NFPA 505, Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use, Conversions,Maintenance, and Operations, 2013 edition.

NFPA 600, Standard on Industrial Fire Brigades, 2010 2015 edition.

NFPA 652, Standard on the Fundamentals of Combustible Dust, 2016 edition.


NFPA 704, Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response, 2012 2017 edition.

NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems, 2014 2017 edition.

NFPA 1081, Standard for Industrial Fire Brigade Member Professional Qualifications, 2012 edition.

NFPA 2112, Standard on Flame-Resistant Garments for Protection of Industrial Personnel Against Flash Fire, 2012 2018 edition.


NFPA 5000®, Building Construction and Safety Code®, 2015 2018 edition.

2.3 Other Publications.

2.3.1 ANSI ASME Publications.

American National Standards Institute, Inc., 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, ASME International, Two Park Avenue, New York, NY10036 10016-5990 .

ANSI/ ASME B31.3, Process Piping Design , 2010 2014 .

ANSI/ISA 84.00.01 Functional Safety: Safety Instrumental Systems for the Process Industry Sector–Part 2, 2004.


29 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM



ASTM E11, Standard Specification for Wire Cloth and Sieves for Testing Purposes Woven Wire Test Sieve Cloth and Test Sieves ,2009 2013 .

ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C, 2012.

ASTM E176, Standard Terminology of Fire Standards, 2010 2014c .

ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2012a .

ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dust Dusts , 2007 2014 .

ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, 2007 2003, reapproved 2013 .

ASTM E2931, Standard Test Method for Limiting Oxygen (Oxidant) Concentration of Combustible Dust Clouds, 2013.

ASTM F1002, Standard Performance Specifications Specification for Protective Clothing for Use by Workers Exposed to SpecificMolten Substances and Related Thermal Hazards, 2006 2015 .

2.3.3 ISA Publications.

International Society of Automation, 67 T.W. Alexander Drive, PO Box 12277, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

ISA 84.00.01, Functional Safety: Application of Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industry Sector , 2004.

2.3.4 UN Publications.

United Nations Publications, Room DC2-853, 2 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017.

UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Manual of Tests and Criteria,5th edition, 2009.

2.3.5 Other Publications.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 2003.

Eckoff, Rolf K., Dust Explosions in the Process Industries, third edition, 2003. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., Oxford, UK, 2003 .

Explosibility of Metal Powders, Report of Investigations (RI) 6516,1964, BuMines, U.S.Department of the Interior, Washington DC,1965.






NFPA 91, Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids,2010 2015 edition.


NFPA 652, Standard on the Fundamentals of Combustible Dust, 2016 edition.


NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2014 2017 edition.

NFPA 5000 ® , Building Construction and Safety Code ® , 2015 edition.

NFPA 1250, Recommended Practice in Fire and Emergency Service Organization Risk Management, 2015 edition.

NFPA 1451, Standard for a Fire and Emergency Service Vehicle Operations Training Program, 2013 edition.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Referenced updated SDO addresses, standard names, and editions -

Will review and update at second draft.


30 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Response Message:

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 484-2015 [Chapter 2]

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


31 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.1* Air-Material Separator (AMS).

A device designed to separate the conveying air from the material being conveyed. [ 654, 2017]







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Definition is being added as the term is used within the document. The committee has reviewed and updated thedefinitions in this document to be consistent with the other combustible dust documents.

Note that the definition is extracted from NFPA 654 and the annex material is extracted from NFPA 652.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.


32 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


33 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

A.3.3.x Air-Material Separator (AMS). Examples include cyclones, bag filter houses, dust collectors, and electrostatic precipitators. [652, 2016]


3.3.5 Bonding.

For the purpose of controlling static electric hazards, the process of connecting two or more conductive objects by means of aconductor so that they are at the same electrical potential but not necessarily at the same potential as the earth. [ 652, 2016]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee has reviewed and updated the definitions in this document to be consistent with the other combustible dustdocuments. Note that this definition is extracted from NFPA 652.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.


34 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


35 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.8* Combustible Dust.

A finely divided combustible particulate solid that presents a flash-fire hazard or explosion hazard when suspended in air or theprocess-specific oxidizing medium over a range of concentrations. [ 654, 2017]







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee has reviewed and updated the definitions in this document to be consistent with the other combustible dustdocuments. Note that this definition is extracted from 654 and is the definition used in 652.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.


36 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


37 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Annex Material for FR‐15 Dusts traditionally were defined as material 420 μm or smaller (i.e., capable of passing through a U.S. No. 40 standard sieve). For consistency with other standards, 500 μm (i.e., capable of passing through a U.S. No. 35 standard sieve) is now considered an appropriate size criterion. Particle surface area‐to‐volume ratio is a key factor in determining the rate of combustion. Combustible particulate solids with a minimum dimension more than 500 μm generally have a surface‐to‐volume ratio that is too small to pose a deflagration hazard. Flat platelet‐shaped particles, flakes, or fibers with lengths that are large compared to their diameter usually do not pass through a 500 μm sieve, yet could still pose a deflagration hazard. Many particulates accumulate electrostatic charge in handling, causing them to attract each other, forming agglomerates. Often, agglomerates behave as if they were larger particles, yet when they are dispersed they present a significant hazard. Therefore, it can be inferred that any particulate that has a minimum dimension less than or equal to 500 μm could behave as a combustible dust if suspended in air or the process specific oxidizer. If the minimum dimension of the particulate is greater than 500 μm, it is unlikely that the material would be a combustible dust, as determined by test. The determination of whether a sample of combustible material presents a flash‐fire or explosion hazard could be based on a screening test methodology such as provided in ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. Alternatively, and a standardized test method such as ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, could be used to determine dust explosibility. Chapter 5 of NFPA 652 has additional information on testing requirements. [654, 2017] There is some possibility that a sample will result in a false positive in the 20 L sphere when tested by the ASTM E1226 screening test or the ASTM E1515 test. This is due to the high energy ignition source overdriving the test. When the lowest ignition energy allowed by either method still results in a positive result, the owner/operator can elect to determine whether the sample is a combustible dust with screening tests performed in a larger scale (≥1 m3) enclosure, which is less susceptible to overdriving and thus will provide more realistic results. [654, 2017] This possibility for false positives has been known for quite some time and is attributed to “overdriven” conditions that exist in the 20 L chamber due to the use of strong pyrotechnic igniters. For that reason, the reference method for explosibility testing is based on a 1 m3 chamber, and the 20 L chamber test method is calibrated to produce results comparable to those from the 1 m3 chamber for most dusts. In fact, the U.S. standard for 20 L testing (ASTM E1226) states, “The objective of this test method is to develop data that can be correlated to those from the 1 m3 chamber (described in ISO 6184‐1 and VDI 3673)…” ASTM E1226 further states, “Because a number of factors (concentration, uniformity of dispersion, turbulence of ignition, sample age, etc.) can affect the test results, the test vessel to be used for routine work must be standardized using dust samples whose KSt and Pmax parameters are known in the 1 m3 chamber.” [654, 2017] NFPA 68 also recognizes this problem and addresses it stating that “the 20 L test apparatus is designed to simulate results of the 1 m3 chamber; however, the igniter discharge makes it problematic to determine KSt values less than 50 bar‐m/sec. Where the material is expected to yield KSt values less than 50 bar‐m/sec, testing in a 1 m3 chamber might yield lower values.” Any time a combustible dust is processed or handled, a potential for deflagration exists. The degree of deflagration hazard varies, depending on the type of combustible dust and the processing methods used. [654, 2017] A dust deflagration has the following four requirements:

(1) Combustible dust (2) Dust dispersion in air or other oxidant (3) Sufficient concentration at or exceeding the minimum explosible concentration (MEC) (4) Sufficiently powerful ignition source such as an electrostatic discharge, an electric current arc, a glowing ember, a hot surface, welding slag, frictional heat, or a flame If the deflagration is confined and produces a pressure sufficient to rupture the confining enclosure, the event is, by definition, an “explosion.” [654, 2017] Evaluation of the hazard of a combustible dust should be determined by the means of actual test data. Each situation should be evaluated and applicable tests selected. The following list represents the factors that are sometimes used in determining the deflagration hazard of a dust: (1) MEC (2) MIE (3) Particle size distribution (4) Moisture content as received and as tested (5) Maximum explosion pressure at optimum concentration (6) Maximum rate of pressure rise at optimum concentration (7) KSt (normalized rate of pressure rise) as defined in ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds (8) Layer ignition temperature (9) Dust cloud ignition temperature (10) Limiting oxidant concentration (LOC) to prevent ignition (11) Electrical volume resistivity (12) Charge relaxation time (13) Chargeability It is important to keep in mind that as a particulate is processed, handled, or transported, the particle size generally decreases due to particle attrition. Therefore, it is often necessary to evaluate the explosibility of the particulate at multiple points along the process. Where process conditions dictate the use of oxidizing media other than air, which is nominally taken as 21 percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen, the applicable tests should be conducted in the appropriate process‐specific medium. [654, 2017]


3.3.10* Combustible Particulate Solid.

Any solid material composed of distinct particles or pieces, regardless of size, shape, or chemical composition, that, whenprocessed, stored, or handled in the facility, has the potential to produce a combustible dust. [ 652, 2016]







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee has reviewed and updated the definitions in this document to be consistent with the other combustibledust documents.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.


38 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


39 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


Combustible particulate solids include dusts, fibers, fines, chips, chunks, flakes, or mixtures of these. The term combustible particulate solid addresses the attrition of material as it moves within the process equipment. Particle abrasion breaks the material down and produces a mixture of large and small particulates, some of which could be small enough to be classified as dusts. Consequently, the presence of dusts should be anticipated in the process stream, regardless of the starting particle size of the material. [652, 2016] The terms particulate solid, dust, and fines are interrelated. It is important to recognize that while these terms refer to various size thresholds or ranges, most particulate solids are composed of a range of particle sizes making comparison to a size threshold difficult. For example, a bulk material that is classified as a particulate solid could contain a significant fraction of dust as part of the particle size distribution. [652, 2016] While hazards of bulk material are addressed in this document using the provisions related to particulate solids, it might be necessary to apply the portions of the document relating to dust where there is potential for segregation of the material and accumulation of only the fraction of the material that fits the definition of dust. Furthermore, it is difficult to establish a fractional cutoff for the size threshold, such as 10 percent below the threshold size or median particle size below the threshold size, as the behavior of the material depends on many factors including the nature of the process, the dispersibility of the dust, and the shape of the particles. [652, 2016] For the purposes of this document, the term particulate solid does not include an upper size limitation. This is intended to encompass all materials handled as particulates, including golf balls, pellets, wood chunks and chips, and so forth. [652, 2016] The term particulate solid is intended to include those materials that are typically processed using bulk material handling techniques such as silo storage, pneumatic or mechanical transfer, etc. While particulate solids can present a fire hazard, they are unlikely to present a dust deflagration hazard unless they contain a significant fraction of dust, which can segregate and accumulate within the process or facility. [652, 2016] Dusts traditionally were defined as material 420 μm or smaller (capable of passing through a U.S. No. 40 standard sieve). For consistency with other standards, 500 μm (capable of passing through a U.S. No. 35 standard sieve) is now considered an appropriate size criterion. Particle surface area‐to volume ratio is a key factor in determining the rate of combustion. Combustible particulate solids with a minimum dimension more than 500 μm generally have a surface‐to volume ratio that is too small to pose a deflagration hazard. Flat platelet‐shaped particles, flakes, or fibers with lengths that are large compared to their diameters usually do not pass through a 500 μm sieve, yet could still pose a deflagration hazard. Many particulates accumulate electrostatic charges in handling, causing them to attract each other, forming agglomerates. Often, agglomerates behave as if they were larger particles, yet when they are dispersed they present a significant hazard. Consequently, it can be inferred that any particulate that has a minimum dimension less than or equal to 500 μm could behave as a combustible dust if suspended in air or in the process specific oxidizer. If the minimum dimension of the particulate is greater than 500 μm, it is unlikely that the material would be a combustible dust, as determined by test. [652, 2016]

Typically, the term fines refers to the fraction of material that is below 75 μm or that will pass through a 200‐mesh sieve. Alternatively, fines can be characterized as the material collected from the final dust collector in a process or the material collected from the highest overhead surfaces in a facility. Fines typically represent a greater deflagration hazard than typical dusts of the same composition because they are more likely to remain suspended for an extended period of time and to have more severe explosion properties (higher Kst , lower MIE, etc.). [652, 2016]


3.3.11 Compartment.

A subdivision of an enclosure. [ 652, 2016]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong


40 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


41 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.15 Detachment.

A hazard management strategy in which the hazard is located in a separate building or an outside area, removed from otherstructures to be protected by a distance as required by this standard. [ 654, 2017]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Sep 11 09:05:31 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.


42 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


43 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.18.1 Dust Collection System.

A combination of equipment designed to capture, contain, and pneumatically convey fugitive dust or powder to an air-materialseparator (AMS) to remove the dust from the process equipment or surrounding area.

3.3.18.1.1 Dry-Type Dust Collector.

A device that does not use liquid to separate the material being conveyed from the conveying medium, such as cyclones or mediacollectors.

3.3.18.1.2 Wet-Type Dust Collector.

A device that uses liquid to separate the material being conveyed from the conveying medium.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Definition is being added as the term is used within the document. The committee has reviewed and updated the definitionsin this document to be consistent with the other combustible dust documents. Note that this definition is different than thedefinition in 652.

The committee has also added definitions for wet and dry-type dust collectors to add clarity to the document.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom



44 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


45 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.18.2 Dust Deflagration Hazard.

A condition that presents the potential for harm or damage to people, property, or the environment due to the combustion of asufficient quantity of combustible dust suspended in air or another oxidizing medium. [ 652, 2016]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong


46 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


47 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.18.3 Dust Explosion Hazard.

A dust deflagration hazard in an enclosure that is capable of bursting or rupturing the enclosure due to the development of internalpressure from the deflagration. [ 652, 2016]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.


48 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


49 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.18.4* Dust Hazards Analysis (DHA).

A systematic review to identify and evaluate the potential fire, flash fire, or explosion hazards associated with the presence of oneor more combustible particulate solids in a process or facility. [ 652, 2016]







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


This definition is extracted from 652, The committee has decided to keep the definition of hazard analysis in 484.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.


50 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


51 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

A.3.3.x Dust Hazards Analysis (DHA). In the context of this definition it is not intended that the dust hazards analysis (DHA) must comply with the process hazards analysis (PHA) requirements contained in OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1910.119, “Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals.”. While the DHA can comply with OSHA PHA requirements, other methods can also be used (see Annex B of NFPA 652). However, some processes might fall within the scope of OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1910.119, and there could be a legal requirement to comply with that regulation.


3.3.20 Explosible.

A material that meets the criteria in Section 4.4 .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Committee added definition for explosible.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin


52 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


53 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.23 Fire Hazard.

Any situation, process, material, or condition that, on the basis of applicable data, can cause a fire or provide a ready fuel supplyto augment the spread or intensity of a fire and poses a threat to life or property. [ 652, 2016]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong


54 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


55 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.26* Flash Fire.

A fire that spreads by means of a flame front rapidly through a diffuse fuel, such as dust, gas, or the vapors of an ignitible liquid,without the production of damaging pressure. [ 921, 2017]







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.


56 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


Kong, Dehong

The term “diffuse fuel” may be considered by readers as “Diffusion Flame”, which is a flame in which fuel and air mix or diffuse together at theregion of combustion. Such flame (front) is stationary in its stable state. The fuel (dust or gas) that support a flash fire is not a “diffuse fuel”,but rather a fuel that is pre-mixed with air before ignition (in the unburned zone of the fuel-air mixture). Flash fire is different from a fuel-airexplosion in that flash fire produces insignificant pressure. This definition can be revised as: “A fire that spreads by means of a flame frontrapidly through a fuel-air mixture, such as dust, gas, or the vapors of an ignitable liquid, without the production of damaging pressure.”


Ural, Erdem A.

Adopting 921 definition is inappropriate and will be confusing for 484 readers. Flash fire is a deflagration, which propagates the same way anexplosion does. The difference arises from the state of the boundaries. I recommend the definition say: A deflagration that spreads rapidlythrough a combustible dust, gas, or vapor cloud, without the production of damaging pressure. I would change the eg part to (e.g., metaldust). I would also change the last sentence to read: High thermal radiation heat flux produced by most metals significantly enlarges thehazard areas beyond the fireball.


57 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

A.3.3.X Flash Fire. A flash fire requires an ignition source and an atmosphere containing a flammable gas, a flammable vapor, or finely divided combustible particles (e.g., coal dust or grain) having a concentration sufficient to allow flame propagation. Flammable gas, flammable vapor, and dust flash fires typically generate temperatures from 1000°F to 1900°F (538°C to 1038°C). The extent and intensity of a flash fire depend on the size and concentration of the gas, vapor, or dust cloud. When ignited, the flame front expands outward in the form of a fireball. The resulting effect of the fireball’s energy with respect to radiant heat significantly enlarges the hazard areas around the point of ignition.


3.3.27 Fuel Object.

A combustible object or mass of particulate that can serve as a source of fuel for a fire or deflagration; sometimes referred to as afuel package . [ 652, 2016]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong


58 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


59 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.30 Grounding.

The process of bonding one or more conductive objects to the ground so that all objects are at zero electrical potential; alsoreferred to as earthing . [ 652, 2016]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong


60 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


61 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.34* Hybrid Mixture

An explosible heterogeneous mixture, comprising gas with suspended solid or liquid particulates, in which the total flammable gasconcentration is ≥10 percent of the lower flammable limit (LFL) and the total suspended particulate concentration is ≥10 percent ofthe minimum explosible concentration (MEC). [ 68, 2013]







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Note that the annex material is extracted from 654.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.


62 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


63 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

A.3.3.x The presence of flammable gases and vapors, even at concentrations less than the lower flammable limit (LFL) of the flammable gases and vapors, adds to the violence of a dust-air combustion. [654, 2017] The resulting dust-vapor mixture is called a hybrid mixture and is discussed in NFPA 68. In certain circumstances, hybrid mixtures can be deflagrable, even if the dust is below the MEC and the vapor is below the LFL. Furthermore, dusts determined to be nonignitible by weak ignition sources can sometimes be ignited when part of a hybrid mixture. [654, 2017] Examples of hybrid mixtures are a mixture of methane, coal dust, and air or a mixture of gasoline vapor and gasoline droplets in air. [654, 2017]


3.3.33 Hot Work.

Any work Work involving burning, spark-producing, welding, or similar operations that is capable of initiating fires orexplosions.[51B, 2014]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong


64 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


65 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.36* Industry- or Commodity-Specific Standard.

An NFPA code or standard whose intent as documented within its purpose or scope is to address fire and explosion hazards of acombustible particulate solid. [ 652, 2016]







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.


66 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


67 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

A.3.3.x Industry- or Commodity-Specific NFPA Standard. It is possible that within a single building or enclosure more than one industry- or commodity-specific NFPA standard could apply. The following documents are commonly recognized as commodity-specific standards: (1) NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities (2) NFPA 120, Standard for Fire Prevention and Control in Coal Mines (3) NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals (4) NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (5) NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (6) NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities


3.3.28 Fugitive Dust.

Any dust, regardless of size, that is lost from manufacturing or other processes.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: New definition added for fugitive dust.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin


68 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


69 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.37.2* Pyrophoric Material.

A chemical with an auto-ignition temperature in material that ignites upon exposure to air at or below 54.4°C (130°F). [ 5000, 2015]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Clarifies definition. It is material, not a chemical that is being defined.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin


70 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


71 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.38 Media Collector.

A An air-material separator such as a bag house or a filter-type cartridge collector used for collecting dust.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Modified to be consistent with the use of the term air-material within the document

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin


72 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


73 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.42* Minimum Ignition Energy. (MIE)

The lowest capacitive spark energy capable of igniting the most ignition-sensitive concentration of a flammable vapor–air mixtureor a combustible dust–air mixture as determined by a standard test procedure. [ 654, 2017]







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.


74 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


75 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

A.3.3.x Minimum Ignition Energy (MIE). The standard test procedure for MIE of combustible particulate solids is ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, and the standard test procedure for MIE of flammable vapors is ASTM E582, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy and Quenching Distance in Gaseous Mixtures. [654, 2017]


3.3.44* Nanometal Powder.

Any metal powder produced with a characteristic size smaller than 500 nanometers (0.5 μm), which can include powders whereonly a fraction of the material produced is less than 500 nanometers (0.5 μm). (See also Section 12.1.2 ) .







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri May 13 11:07:33 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Adds new definition for nanometal powder. Note that the TC is adding a new chapter on nanometals to the document.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.


76 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


77 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

A.3.XXX* Although nanomaterials are usually defined as particles smaller than 100 nanometers (.1 μm), larger particulates with diameters of almost 500 nanometers (0.5μm) also exhibit special ignitability characteristics and enhanced combustibility and explosibility. For example, LOC data reported by Mittal (Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 27 (2014) 55‐64) shows the LOC for magnesium is 5% for a particle size range of 38 µm to 125 µm, and decreases to 3% for a particle size of 0.4 micrometers (400 nanometers).


3.3.48* Pneumatic Conveying System.

An equipment system that transfers a controlled flow of solid particulate material from one location to another using air or othergases as the conveying medium, and that is comprised of the following components: a material feeding device; an enclosedductwork, piping, or tubing network; an air–material separator; and an air-moving device. [ 652, 2016]







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.


78 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


79 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

A. 3.3.x Pneumatic Conveying System Pneumatic conveying systems include a wide range of equipment systems utilizing air or other gases to transport solid particles from one point to another. A typical system comprises the following: (1) A device used to meter the material into the conveying air stream (2) Piping, tubing, hose, etc., used to provide the closed pathway from the metering device to the AMS (3) An AMS designed for the separation of comparatively large amounts of material from the conveying air/gas stream (4) An additional metering device (typically a rotary airlock valve or similar device) that might be used to allow discharge of the separated material from the conveying air stream without affecting the differential pressure of the system (5) An AMD designed to produce the necessary pressure differential and air/gas flow in the system (positive or negative) [654, 2017] A pneumatic conveying system requires the amount of material conveyed by the system to be considered as a major factor in the system pressure drop calculations. [654, 2017] Both positive and negative (i.e., vacuum) differential pressure are used for pneumatic conveying. The decision of which is the best for a specific application should be based upon a risk analysis, equipment layout, and other system operational and cost factors. [654, 2017] Dense phase conveying can also be considered for the application, especially with more hazardous materials (e.g., low MIE). The inherent design and operational features of this approach can provide significant safety and operational advantages over other types of pneumatic conveying systems. [654, 2017]


3.3.52 Qualified Person.

A person who, by possession of a recognized degree, certificate, professional standing, or skill, and who, by knowledge, training,and experience, has demonstrated the ability to deal with problems related to the subject matter, the work, or the project. [ 1451,2013]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.


80 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


81 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.54 Replacement-in-Kind.

A replacement that satisfies the design specifications. of the replaced item. [ 652, 2016]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong


82 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


83 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.56* Risk Assessment.

An assessment of the likelihood, vulnerability, and magnitude of the incidents that could result from exposure to hazards. [ 1250,2015]







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Review and update extract at second draft.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.


84 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


85 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

A.3.3.34 Risk Assessment. A risk assessment is a process that performs the following: (1) Identifies hazards (2) Quantifies the consequences and probabilities of the identified hazards (3) Identifies hazard control options (4) Quantifies the effects of the options on the risks of the hazards (5) Establishes risk tolerance criteria (maximum tolerable levels of risk) (6) Selects the appropriate control options that meet or exceed the risk acceptability thresholds Steps 1 through 3 are typically performed as part of a dust hazards analysis (DHA). Risk assessments can be qualitative, semiquantitative, or quantitative. Qualitative methods are usually used to identify the most hazardous events. Semiquantitative methods are used to determine relative hazards associated with unwanted events and are typified by indexing methods or numerical grading. Quantitative methods are the most extensive and use a probabilistic approach to quantify the risk based on both frequency and consequences. See SFPE Engineering Guide to Fire Risk Assessment or AIChE Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures for more information.


3.3.58 Segregation.

A hazard management strategy in which a physical barrier is established between the hazard area and an area to be protected.[ 654, 2017]

3.3.59 Separation.

A hazard management strategy achieved by the establishment of a distance as required by the standard between the combustibleparticulate solid process and other operations that are in the same room. [ 654, 2017]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Note that these definitions are extracted from the 2017 edition of 654.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.


86 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


Rodgers, Samuel A.

This comment relates to 3.3.55.1 Magnesium Ribbon definition. The units equivalence seems to be reversed, ie 1/8 inch is 3.2 mm and 1/20inch is 1.3 mm.


87 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.60 Spark.

A moving particle of solid material that emits radiant energy due to either its temperature or the process of combustion on itssurface. [ 654, 2017]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

24 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kreitman, Kevin


88 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


Kong, Dehong

The "spark" in this definition describes the nature of "Mechanical Spark", which is a more accurate term.


89 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.57 Screening Test.

For the purposes of this standard, a test performed to determine whether a material product, or assembly, (a) exhibits any usual fireor explosion related characteristics, (b) has certain expected fire or explosion related characteristics, or (c) is capable of beingcategorized according to the fire or explosion characteristic in question. [ ASTM E 176, 2010 Modified] mixture exhibits fire - ,explosion - , or water-reactivity-related characteristics.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee has modified this definition. Additional annex material on screening tests has been added to A.4.3.4and A.4.4.2

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli


90 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


91 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.62* Sponge.

Metal after it has been won from the ore but before it is A porous metal product obtained by processing metal ore prior to beingmelted.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Committee modified definition to provide clarity.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong


92 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


93 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


3.3.70 Wall.

3.3.70.1 Fire Barrier Wall.

A wall, other than a fire wall, having a fire resistance rating. [ 221, 2015]

3.3.70.2 Fire Wall.

A wall separating buildings or subdividing a building to prevent the spread of fire and having a fire resistance rating and structuralstability. [ 221, 2015]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:


Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.


94 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


95 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


5.1.4 Application of This Document.

5.1.4.1

Only those specific forms of combustible metals, powders, dusts, and alloys of those materials that can be documented throughaccepted testing, and shown in that form not to satisfy the conditions and definitions of combustibility and explosibility, shall qualifyfor exclusion from the requirements of this document. (See 1.1.6 for additional information.)

5.1.4.2

Wherever combustibility can be shown to exist in these materials, the full scope and requirements of this document shall apply.

5.1.4.3

Wherever the documentation necessary for compliance with 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 is lacking, the requirements of this document shallapply.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Sep 21 16:20:04 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee has added material referring the reader to Section 1.1.6, the requirements for mixtures, in an effort to clarifythis section. The committee may update the flow chart in Chapter 1 to further clarify the scope of the document at seconddraft.

ResponseMessage:


Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


96 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


97 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


5.3.4*

If the material, in the form tested, ignites and propagates combustion, or ejects sparks from the heated zone after the heat source isremoved, or ignites before the ignition source is applied to the sample, the material shall be considered combustible and thestandard shall be applicable.







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Adds criteria that is applicable for nanometals. The committee has also added explanatory text for the new criteria inthe Annex.

The technical committee added additional annex material to this section to clarify the interpretation of test results formetals.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.


98 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


99 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


5.4.1.1*

If the material is determined to be explosible, some or all of the standard test methods in Figure 5.4.1 shall be performed as neededby the hazard analysis as described in Section 4.4. If a sample either ignites during ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method forExplosibility of Dust Clouds , screening testing prior to ignition source energizing, or results in a positive classification, it shall beconsidered to be explosible.







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Committee added material that is relevant to the testing of nanometals.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.


100 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


101 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


4.4.1*

The design of the fire and explosion safety provisions shall be based on a hazard analysis of the facility, the process, and theassociated fire, explosion, and explosion reactivity hazards.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Adds reactivity hazard to hazard analysis

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong


102 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


103 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


4.8* Organometallic Materials. (Reserved)







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Mar 16 18:58:54 EDT 2016

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee is adding a new reserved section on organometallic materials. Additional material may be added atsecond draft or for the next edition of the document.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.


104 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


105 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


Global FR-45

8.5.1

The following list of actions to be performed as well as information regarding the hazards of combustible metals shall be providedto the emergency responders for the safe handling of combustible metal fires:

(1)

(2) Ensure control of utilities (e.g., water, gases, power, etc.) to affected areas.

(3) Review safety data sheets (SDSs) for the involved products, and if available, contact those familiar with the product andhazards.

(4) Evaluate whether the fire can be isolated safely and allowed to burn out.

(5) Determine whether uninvolved product and exposures (— other than alkali metals) — can be protected by hose streams, afteran adequate review has been completed to ensure any runoff from hose streams does not come into contact with burning ormolten combustible metal.

(6) Water shall not be appliedDo not apply water to alkali metals in either a fire or non-firenonfire situation.

(7) Use an inert blanket,(such as argon, helium, or nitrogen), if the fire is burning in a closed container, such as a dust collectionsystem, to control the fire where an adequate delivery system is available and personnel safety is considered.

(8) Evaluate the potential for explosion.

(9) Use extreme caution with fires involving combustible-metal powders, dusts, and fines because of the possibility of explosions,especially if the product becomes airborne and there is an available ignition source.

(10) Evaluate the control and shutdown of both domestic and fire protection water systems to prevent unintended contact of waterwith burning or molten combustible metal.

(11) Use extinguishing agents that are compatible with the hazards present. (See 8.3.3 .)

(12) Use extinguishing agents for containment of small and incipient fires. (See 8.3.3 .)

(13)

(14) Most fires involving combustible metals cannot be extinguished in a manner other than by providing an inert atmosphere ofargon or helium (— and nitrogen for alkali metals or iron)— if the product is dry.

(15) Most fires can be controlled by application of argon or helium (— or nitrogen for alkali metals or iron)— or by the developmentof an oxide crust.

(16) The temperature of the metals involved in the fire can remain extremely high and the fire can flare up again if the product isdisturbed prior to complete oxidation of the product or self-extinguishment.

(17) Water in contact with molten combustible metals will result in violent steam explosions, and can cause hydrogen explosionsand reactions.

(18) Isolate the metal as much as possible; large fires might be impossible to extinguish.

(19) Evaluate whether there is adequate drainage to prevent the contact of water with burning metal that is notcompatablecompatible for protecting exposures.

(20) Evaluate the fire to determine whether the fire can burn itself out naturally to minimize hazards to personnel and losses toexposures.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Sep 21 16:46:54 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee made this change to clarify that the list in 6.4.1 consists of appropriate actions to be taken by theemergency respondents as well as information to be provided. This is in partial response to PI #8

* Perform a size-up, evaluation, and identification of metals involved in the fire.

* Use extreme caution with fires involving large quantities of product within structures.


106 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


107 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


10.5* Static Electricity.

10.5.1*

All permanently installed process equipment and all building structural steel shall be grounded and bonded by permanent groundwires to prevent accumulation of static electricity.

10.5.1.1

Grounding and bonding of equipment shall be independent of the facility electrical system.

10.5.1.2*

Where nonconductive components present a discontinuity in the electrical path, isolated conductive components shall be bonded.

10.5.2*

Movable or mobile process equipment or tools of metal construction shall be bonded and/ or grounded or both, prior to use.

10.5.3*

A monitoring and testing schedule shall be established based on the hazard assessment requirements of Section 6.2 to ensure thatthe effectiveness of grounding and bonding of fixed and mobile equipment has not failed or deteriorated over time and use.

10.5.4

Static dissipative belts shall be used on belt-driven equipment.

10.5.5

All machinery where nonconductive components present a discontinuity in the grounding path shall be bonded between adjacentconductive components.

10.5.5 Ductwork for Pneumatic Conveying Systems.

Bonding and grounding for dust collection and pneumatic conveying shall be in accordance with Chapter 11.

10.5.6* Grounding of Personnel.

10.5.6.1

Personnel involved in manually filling or emptying containers or vessels, or handling open containers of metals in a combustibleform, shall be grounded during such operations.

10.5.6.2

Personnel grounding shall not be required where both of the following conditions are met:

(1)

(2)







Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Technical committee added information to clarify and strengthen the requirements for grounding and bonding in thestandard.

Response Message:

Ballot Results

* Flammable gases, vapors, and hybrid mixtures are not present.

* The minimum ignition energy (MIE) of the dust cloud is greater than 30 mJ.


108 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


109 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


10.8 Electrical Area Classification.

10.8.1*

In local areas of a plant where combustible or flammable liquids are present, or where combustible metal dust accumulates or ispresent in suspension in the air, the area shall be classified, and all electrical equipment and installations in those local areas shallcomply with Article 500 of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code . The classification criteria in NFPA 70 shall be applied whenevercombustible metal particulate meets the definition of combustible metal dust in this standard, not withstanding the definition ofcombustible dust in NFPA 70 .

10.8.1.1

The identification of the possible presence and extent of Class II locations shall be made based on the criteria in NFPA 70 , Article500.5 (C).

10.8.1.1.1

All areas designated as hazardous (classified) locations shall be documented, and such documentation shall be maintained andpreserved for access at the facility.

10.8.1.2

Electrical equipment and wiring within Class II locations shall comply with Article 500.5(C) of NFPA 70 .

10.8.1.3*

Electrical equipment and components installed in unclassified locations, where combustible metal dusts are processed or handled,shall be inspected both internally and externally and cleaned at least annually, or more frequently if warranted. Preventivemaintenance programs for electrical equipment and wiring in Class II locations shall include provisions to verify that dusttightelectrical enclosures are not experiencing significant dust ingress.

10.8.1.4*

Zone classification for dusts in accordance with Article 506 of NFPA 70 shall not be permitted.

10.8.1.5

Flashlights and other portable electrical equipment shall be identified for the locations where they are used.

10.8.2

All hazardous (classified) areas identified in accordance with 10.8.1 shall be documented, and such documentation shall bemaintained on file for the life of the facility.



Annex_Material_for_FR_-_9.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Clarifies electrical classification requirements for metal dusts - points to NFPA 70, but does not endorse the definition ofcombustible dust in NFPA 70. Makes clear that zone classification is not to be used for metal dusts.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters


110 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


111 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM



112 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

A.5.4.1


113 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Table A.5.4.1 gives a small sample of published ignition and explosion data on various sizes of aluminum powders.

Table A.5.4.1 Atomized Aluminum Particle Ignition and Explosion Data

ParticleSize (d50)

(µm)

BET

(m2/g)

MEC

(g/m3)

Pmax

(psi)

dP/dtmax(psi/sec)

KSt(bar·m/sec)

SampleConcentration That

Corresponds toPmax and dP/dtmax

MIE(mJ) LOC (%)

Most EasilyIgnitible

Concentration

(g/m3)

Nonspherical, Nodular, or Irregular Powders

53 0.18 170 123 3,130 59 1,250

42 0.19 70 133 5,720 1071,250 (Pmax), 1,000

(dP/dtmax)

32 0.34 60 142 7,950 149 1,250 10

32 0.58 65 133 8,880 167750 (Pmax), 1,500

(dP/dtmax)11

Ignition @8.0%Nonignition @7.5%

1,000

30 0.10 60 10

28 0.11 55 140 6,360 1191,000 (Pmax), 1,250

(dP/dtmax)11

28 0.21 55 146 8,374 157 1,500 11

9 0.90 65 165 15,370 288750 (Pmax), 1,000

(dP/dtmax)4

7 0.74 90 153 17,702 3321,000 (Pmax), 500

(dP/dtmax)12

6 0.15 80 176 15,580 292 750 3.5

6 0.70 75 174 15,690 294500 (Pmax), 1,000

(dP/dtmax)3

5 1.00 70 4

4 0.78 75 167 15,480 2911,000 (Pmax), 750

(dP/dtmax)3.5

Spherical Powders

63 0.15 120 101 1,220 231,250 (Pmax), 1,000

(dP/dtmax)N.I.


1,750

36 0.25 60 124 4,770 90 1,250 13

30 0.10 60 140 5,940 111 1,000 13

15 0.50 45 148 10,812 203 1,000 7

15 0.30 55 8

6 0.53 75 174 16,324 306 750 6

5 1.30 167 14,310 269 750


750

5 1.00 70 155 14,730 276 1,250 6


1,250

3 2.50 95 165 15,900 298 1,250 4

2 3.00 130

For U.S. conversions: 1 m2/g = 4884 ft2/lb; 1 g/m2 = 0.000062 lb/ft2; 1 bar/sec = 14.5 psi/sec; 1 bar·m/sec = 0.226 psi·ft/sec.

BET: surface area per unit mass; MEC: minimum explosible concentration; MIE: minimum ignition energy; LOC: limiting oxygen (O2)

concentration.

Notes:

(1) The powders tested are representative samples produced by various manufacturers utilizing a variety of methods ofmanufacture, submitted for testing to a single, nationally recognized testing laboratory, at the same time.

(2) Data for each characteristic were obtained using the following ASTM methods: MEC: ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method forMinimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts; MIE: ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy ofa Dust Cloud in Air; maximum pressure rise (Pmax), maximum pressure rise rate (dP/dt), and deflagration index (KSt): ASTM

E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds; LOC: ASTM E2079, Standard Test Methods for Limiting Oxygen


114 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

(Oxidant) Concentration in Gases and Vapors.

(3) Particle size data represent the d50 measurement determined by the laser light–scattering technique.

(4) Test results represent only the characteristics of those samples tested and should not be considered to be universally applicable.Users are encouraged to test samples of powders obtained from their individual process.

(5) The determination of explosibility parameters (i.e., P max , LOC, K St ) for nanometals should be conducted with

representative nanometal samples, because the values of some explosibility parameters can be significantly different than thecorresponding values measured with micrometer-sized samples. In the case of many nanometals, the ASTM E1226 test methodsto determine explosibility parameters require modification to prevent pre-ignition during compressed air injection into the test vessel.(See Bouilard 2010 and 2013.)




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Committee added additional footnote regarding testing for nanometals.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong


115 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


116 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM


A.5.4.2

The determination of whether a sample of material is a combustible, explosible dust should be based on the explosibility screeningtest methodology provided in ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. Alternatively, a standardized testmethod such as ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, can be used todetermine dust explosibility.

There is some possibility that a sample will result in a false positive in the 20 L (5.25 gal) sphere when tested by the ASTM E1226screening test or the ASTM E1515 test. This is due to the high energy ignition source over-driving the test. When the lowest ignitionenergy allowed by either method still results in a positive result, the owner/operator can elect to determine whether the sample is a

combustible dust with screening tests performed in a larger scale (≥1 m3) enclosure, which is less susceptible to over-driving andthus will provide more realistic results .

This possibility for false positives has been known for quite some time and is attributed to over-driven conditions that exist in the 20L chamber due to the use of strong pyrotechnic igniters. For that reason, the reference method for explosibility testing is based on 1

m 3 chamber, and the 20 L chamber test method is calibrated to produce results comparable to those from 1 m 3 chamber formost dusts. In fact, the U.S. standard for 20 L testing ( ASTM E1226 ) states, “The objective of this test method is to develop data

that can be correlated to those from the 1 m 3 chamber.” ASTM E1226 further states, “Because a number of factors(concentration, uniformity of dispersion, turbulence of ignition, sample age, etc.) can affect the test results, the test vessel to be

used for routine work must be standardized using dust samples whose K St and P max parameters are known in the 1 m 3

chamber.”

NFPA 68 , Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting , also recognizes this problem and addresses it: “The 20 L

test apparatus is designed to simulate results of the 1 m 3 chamber; however, the igniter discharge makes it problematic todetermine K St values less than 50 bar-m/sec. Where the material is expected to yield K St values less than 50 bar-m/sec,

testing in a 1 m 3 chamber might yield lower values.”

For some combustible metals, it has been found that the K St and P max values will be higher in a larger scale enclosure. This

means that conversely there is some possibility that a sample will result in a false negative in the 20 L (5.25 gal) sphere when testedby the ASTM E1226 screening test or the ASTM E1515 test. If a screening test produces evidence of combustion yet a test

pressure below the threshold, it is recommended to validate this negative result in the larger scale 1m 3 enclosure. This possibilityis considered more likely for metals with calculated maximum adiabatic flame temperature equivalent to magnesium and higher.NFPA 68 mentions specifically aluminum, hafnium, magnesium, tantalum, and titanium as metals that could exhibit the samephenomena. [See also Table A.1.1.3(a) .]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Sep 22 16:10:25 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The technical committee has revised this annex material to provide additional information on ASTM E1226 results forcombustible metals.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


117 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


118 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

First Revision No. 11-NFPA 484-2015 [ Chapter J ]

Annex J Informational References

J.1 Referenced Publications.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this annex are referenced within the informational sections of this standard and are notpart of the requirements of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2 for other reasons.



NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2013 2016 edition.

NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2015 2018 edition.

NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work, 2014 2019 edition.

NFPA 55, Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids Code, 2013 2016 edition.

NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities, 2013 2017edition.



NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code®, 2014 2017 edition.

NFPA 77, Recommended Practice on Static Electricity, 2014 2019 edition.


NFPA 101®,Life Safety Code®,2015 2018 edition.

NFPA 120, Standard for Fire Prevention and Control in Coal Mines, 2010 2015 edition.

NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction, 2015 2018 edition.


NFPA 495, Explosive Materials Code, 2013 2018 edition.

NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment , 2013 edition.

NFPA 497, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Flammable Liquids, Gases, or Vapors and of Hazardous (Classified)Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas, 2012 2017 edition.

NFPA 499, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous (Classified) Locations for ElectricalInstallations in Chemical Process Areas, 2013 2017 edition.


NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions, 2012 2017 edition.

NFPA 664 , Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities, 2012 2017edition.

NFPA 704, Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response, 2012 2017 edition.

NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program, 2013 2018 edition.

NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2013 2018 edition.

NFPA 2112, Standard on Flame-Resistant Garments for Protection of Industrial Personnel Against Flash Fire , 2018 edition.


Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials, 2013.

SFPE, Engineering Guide to Fire Risk Assessment , 2006

SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings , 2007.


J.1.2.1 ACGIH Publications.

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240-1634.

Industrial Ventilation — A Manual of Recommended Practice for Design , 2013.


119 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

J.1.2.2 AIChE Publications.

American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 120 Wall Street, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10005–4020.

Britton, L.G., Avoiding Static Ignition Hazards in Chemical Operations, (Revised Edition), AIChE Center for Chemical ProcessSafety, 1999.

Forbath, T. P. “Sodium Reduction Route Yields Titanium,” Chemical Engineering Progress, March 1958.

Guidelines for Engineering Design for Process Safety, AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety, 2nd edition, 2012.

Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety, 3rd edition, 2008.

Powell, R. L. “Chemical Engineering Aspects of Titanium Metal Production,” Chemical Engineering Progress, March 1954, pp.578–581.

J.1.2.3 AMCA Publications .

Air Movement and Control Association, Inc., 30 West University Drive, Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1893.

AMCA Standard 99-0401, “Classifications for Spark Resistant Construction,” 1986.

AMCA Standards Handbook, 2010.

J.1.2.4 ANSI Publication.

American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036.

ANSI Z41, Personal Protection — Protective Footwear , 1999.

J.1.2.4 ASM International Publications.

American Society of Metals, 9639 Kinsman, Materials Park, OH 44073-0002.

ASM Handbook, Volume 1: Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels, and High-Performance Alloys, 1990.

ASM Handbook, Volume 2: Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special-Purpose Materials, 1990.

J.1.2.5 ASTM Publications.


ASTM D2240, Standard Test Method for Rubber Property — Durometer Hardness, 1995 2005, reapproved 2010 .

ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C, 2011 2012 .

ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012A .


ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, 2007 2003, reapproved 2013 .

ASTM E2079, Standard Test Methods for Limiting Oxygen (Oxidant) Concentration in Gases and Vapors, 2007, reapproved 2013 .

ASTM F955, Standard Test Method for Evaluating Heat Transfer through Materials for Protective Clothing Upon Contact with MoltenSubstances, 2007 (2015E1) .

ASTM F1002, Standard Performance Specification for Protective Clothing for Use by Workers Exposed to Specific MoltenSubstances and Related Thermal Hazards, 2006 2015

ASTM F2412, Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection , 2011 .

ASTM F2413, Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective (Safety) Toe Cap Footwear , 2011.

ASTM F2621, Standard Practice for Determining Response Characteristics and Design Integrity of Arc Rated Finished Products inan Electric Arc Exposure, 2012.

J.1.2.6 Battelle Memorial Institute Publications .

Battelle Memorial Institute, Defense Metals Information Center, 505 King Ave., Columbus, OH 43201.

General Recommendations on Design Features for Titanium and Zirconium Production-Melting Furnaces, 1961.

J.1.2.7 BSI Publications.

British Standards Institution, 389 Chiswick High Road, London W4 4AL, United Kingdom.

BS 5958-1, Code of Practice for Control of Undesirable Static Electricity: General Considerations, 1991. (Superseded by BS PDCLC/TR 50404, Code of Practice for the Avoidance of Hazards Due to Static Electricity , 2003.)

BS 6713-1/ISO 6184-1, Explosion Protection Systems, Part I: Method for Determination of Explosion Indices of Combustible Dustsin Air , 1986. (Withdrawn)

EN 14034-1, Determination of Explosion Characteristics of Dust Clouds — Part 1: Determination of the Maximum ExplosionPressure P max of Dust Clouds , 2004 A1:2011.

EN 14034-2, Determination of Explosion Characteristics of Dust Clouds — Part 2: Determination of the Maximum Rate ofExplosion Pressure Rise (dP/dt) max of Dust Clouds , 2006 A1:2011.

EN 14034-3, Determination of Explosion Characteristics of Dust Clouds — Part 3: Determination of the Lower Explosion Limit(LEL) of Dust Clouds , 2006 A1:2011.

EN 14034-4, Determination of Explosion Characteristics of Dust Cloud s — Part 4: Determination of the Limiting OxygenConcentration (LOC) of Dust Clouds , 2004 A1:2011.


120 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

J.1.2.8 CCPS Publications.

Center for Chemical Process Safety, 120 Wall Street, Floor 23, New York, NY, 10005-4020.

Guidelines for Process Safety in Bioprocess Manufacturing Facilities , November 2010.

J.1.2.9 NEMA Publications .

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1847 900 , Rosslyn Arlington , VA 22209.

Guide for Classification of All Types of Insulated Wire and Cable, 2001.

J.1.2.10 U.S. Bureau of Mines Publications.

U.S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh Research Center, Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0070.

RI 3722, “Inflammability and Explosibility of Metal Powders,” I. Hartmann, J. Nagy, and H. R. Brown, 1943.

RI 4835, “Explosive Characteristics of Titanium, Zirconium, Thorium, Uranium and Their Hydrides,” 1951.

RI 4879, “Recent Practice at the Bureau of Mines, Boulder City, Nev., Titanium Plant,” 1951.

RI 6516, “Explosibility of Metal Powders,” M. Jacobsen, A. R. Cooper, and J. Nagy, 1964.

J.1.2.11 U.S. Government Publications.

Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910.146, “Permit Required Confined Spaces.”

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261, Subpart (B).

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 100–199.

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1200 (DOT and HM-181).

Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 36, "Approved Requirements for Permissible Mobile Diesel-Powered TransportationEquipment."

U.S. Chemical Safety Board Case Study Report on Hoeganaes Corp. Fatal Flash Fires, 2011.

J.1.2.12 Other Publications.

A.G. Dastidar, P.R. Amyotte, J. Going, and K. Chatrathi, “Flammability Limits of Dusts: Minimum Inerting Concentrations," ProcessSafety Progress, vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 1999.

Boilard, Simon P., “Explosibility of micron- and nanosize titanium powders,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries ,vol. 26, pp. 1–9, 2013.

Bouilard et al., “Ignition and explosion risks of nanopowders,” Journal of Hazardous Materials , vol. 181, pp. 873–880, 2010.

Cashdollar, Kenneth, and Isaac Zlochower, “Explosion Temperatures and Pressures of Metals and Other Elemental Dust Clouds,”Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 20, issues 4-6, 2007.

Eisner, H. S., “Aluminum and the Gas Ignition Risk,”The Engineer, London, Feb. 17, 1967.


Gibson et al., “Fire Hazards in Chemical Plants from Friction Sparks Involving the Thermite Reaction,” Industrial ChemistsEngineering Symposium Series, No. 25, London, 1968.

“Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice,” 25th ed., Lansing, MI, American Conference of Governmental IndustrialHygienists, 2004. Available from Kemper Words Center, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240.

Janés, A., Marlair, G., Carson, D., Chaineaux, J., Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 25. pp. 524-534, 2012.

Krietsch et al., “Explosion behaviour of metallic nano powders,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries , vol. 36, pp.237–243, 2015.

Liz-Marzan, L.M., “Nanometals: Formation and color,” Materials Today , February 2004.

Mittal, “Limiting oxygen concentration for coal dusts for explosion hazard analysis and safety,” Journal of Loss Prevention in theProcess Industries , Vol. 26, Issue 6, pp. 1106–1112, November 2013.

Mittal, “Explosion characteristics of micron- and nano-size magnesium powders,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the ProcessIndustries , Vol. 27, pp. 55–64, January 2014.

Sahiner, N., “Soft and flexible hydrogel templates of different sizes and various functionalities for metal nanoparticle preparation andtheir use in catalysis,” Progress in Polymer Science , vol. 38, 2013.

Schrofel, A., et al., “Applications of biosynthesized metallic nanoparticles: a review,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 10, no. 10, pp 4023–42,Oct. 2014.

The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, “Hoeganaes Corporation: Gallatin, TN, Metal Dust Flash Fire andHydrogen Explosion,” 2011.

VDI Guidelines 2263, Part 1, Test Methods for the Determinations of Safety Characteristics Dusts , 2005.

Wu, et al., “Study on safe air transporting velocity of nanograde aluminum, iron, and titanium,” Journal of Loss Prevention in theProcess Industries , vol. 23, pp 308–311, 2010.

J.2 Informational References.

The following documents or portions thereof are listed here as informational resources only. They are not a part of the requirementsof this document.


121 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM



NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems, 2013 2017 edition.

Fire Protection Handbook, 20th ed., National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2008.

J.2.2 Aluminum Association Publications.

The Aluminum Association, 900 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20006. 1400 Crystal Drive, Suite 430, Arlington, VA 22202

AA F-1, Guidelines for Handling Aluminum Fines Generated During Various Aluminum Fabricating Operations , 2000.

AA TR-2, Recommendations for Storage and Handling of Aluminum Powders and Paste, 2000. (no longer available)

F-1 Guidelines for Handling Aluminum Fines Generated During Various Aluminum Fabricating Operations, 2000.

J.2.3 New Mexico Engineering Research Institute Publications.

University of New Mexico, 901 University SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106-4339.

Lee, M. E., Stepetic, T. J., Watson, J. D., and Moore, T. A., Lithium Fire Suppression Study, Phase 3 (Medium-Scale), NavalUndersea Warfare Engineering Station, Keyport, Washington, November 1989 (NMERI OC 90/10).

Moore, T. A., T. J. Stepetic, and R. E. Tapscott, Preliminary Environmental and Safety Evaluation of Large Scale Lithium Metal Fires,Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, Keyport, Washington, March 1989.


Bartknecht, W., “Explosions Pressure Relief,” Chemical Engineering Progress, 11th Loss Prevention Symposium, Houston, 1977.

Bartknecht, W., Exploseonen, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1979.

Bartknecht, W., “Report on Investigations on the Problem of Pressure Relief of Explosions of Combustible Dusts in Vessels,” StaubReinhalt, Luft, Vol. 34, No. 11, Nov. 1974, and Vol. 34, No. 12, Dec. 1974.

Bodurtha, F. T., Industrial Explosion, Prevention and Protection, New York: McGraw Hill, 1980.


Donat, C., “Pressure Relief as Used in Explosion Protection,” Chemical Engineering Progress, 11th Loss Prevention Symposium,Houston, TX, 1977.

Gromov, Alexander A., and Teipel Ulrich, Metal Nanopowders: Production, Characterization, and Energetic Application . John Wiley& Sons, 2014.

Lerner M., A. Vorozhtsov, Sh. Guseinov, and P. Storozhenko, “Metal Nanopowders Production,” Chapter 4, Metal Nanopowders:Production, Characterization, and Energetic Application . Somerset, Gromov, Alexander A., and Teipel, Ulrich, eds., John Wiley &Sons, Inc., 2014.

National Safety Council, Data Sheet 1-66, Lithium, National Safety Council, 1121 Spring Lake Dr., Itasca, IL 60143-3201.

Nazarenko Olga, et al., Electroexplosive Nanometals , XXXX.

Palmer, K. N., Dust Explosions and Fires, London: Chapman & Hall, 1973.


Wu, et al., “Flame phenomena in nanogrinding process for titanium and iron,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries ,vol. 27, pp 114–118, 2014.

J.3 References for Extracts in Informational Sections. (Reserved)

NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling ofCombustible Particulate Solids , 2013 edition.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated SDO names, addresses, standard names, numbers, and edition years.

Review and update at second draft.

Response Message:


122 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM

Public Input No. 2-NFPA 484-2015 [Chapter J]

Ballot Results


28 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

25 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Davis, Scott G.


Young, David K.

Affirmative All

Belfanti, John

Bruce, Donna R.

Buc, Elizabeth C.

Burridge, Brad D.

Christman, Tom


Dillon, Scott E.

Downing, Peter F.

Drake, Mark W.

Evans, Steven C.

Hart, Paul F.

Horden, Eli

Hubert, Daniel J.

Kong, Dehong

Kreitman, Kevin

Levitt, Peter

Myers, Timothy J.

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Seidel, Richard

Super, Gregory M.


Ural, Erdem A.

Varga, Richard S.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Zimmerman, Stephen


123 of 123 11/1/2016 11:38 AM