first draft meeting ppt - nfpa … · subject: nfpa 67 second draft tc final ballot results (f2015...

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: NFPA Technical Committee on Explosion Protection Systems

From: Elena Carroll, Project Administrator

Date: May 29, 2015

Subject: NFPA 67 Second Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (F2015 Cycle)

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

29 Members Eligible to Vote

9 Not Returned (Dimopoulos, Febo, Floyd, Gillis, Kirby, Morrison, Paavola, Rooker, Trull)

19 Affirmative on All Revisions

1 Affirmative with Comment on one or more Revisions (Rodgers)

1 Negative on one or more Revisions (Ibarreta)

0 Abstentions

The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of

the vote for each second revision.

There are two criteria necessary for each second revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2/3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined.

(1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes

are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote ÷ 2 = 10 + 1 = 11)

(2) Example for Affirmative 2/3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not

return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample

calculation: 20 members eligible to vote – 1 not returned – 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 )

As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Second Revision No. 12-NFPA 67-2015 [ Global Comment ]

Change all references of "Shepherd (2006)" in Chapter 7 to "Shepherd (2009)".

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Laura Montville

Organization: [ Not Specified ]

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Apr 06 16:13:06 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The Chapter 2 reference was updated in the First Draft. The parenthetical reference shouldhave been carried through to Chapter 7.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results

This item has passed ballot

29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All

1 Affirmative with Comments

0 Negative with Comments

0 Abstention

Not Returned

Dimopoulos, Alexi I.

Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.

Affirmative All

Bhamidipati, Venkateswara Sarma

Clouthier, Martin P.

Davies, Michael

Davis, Randal R.

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

1 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.

Ibarreta, Alfonso F.

Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Skinker, Cleveland B.

Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Affirmative with Comment

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Please note that in 7.7.3.2 the reference to Chao and Shepherd should not be updated as part of the globalchange. The references show this paper as 2003.


2 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Second Revision No. 1-NFPA 67-2015 [ Section No. 2.3.3 ]

2.3.3 ASTM Publications.

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

ASTM E681, Standard Test Method for Concentration Limits of Flammability of Chemicals (Vapors andGases), 2009.

ASTM E2079, Standard Test Method for Limiting Oxygen (Oxidant) Concentration for Gases and Vapors,2007, reapproved 2013 .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Mar 30 16:51:53 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated edition reference

Response Message:

Ballot Results


29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.

Affirmative All



3 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM


Davies, Michael

Davis, Randal R.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.


Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Rodgers, Samuel A.


Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


4 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM



5 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

2.3.6 Other Publications.


6 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Bartknecht, W., Explosions — Course, Prevention, Protection, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1980.

Berger, S. A., L. Talbot, and L. S. Yao, “Flow in Curved Pipes,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 15(1983): 461–512.

Bjerketvedt, D., et al., “Gas Explosion Handbook,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 52 (1997): 1–150.

Blanchard, R., D. Arndt, R. Gratz, M. Poli, and S. Scheider, “Explosions in Closed Pipes ContainingBaffles and 90 Degree Bends,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23, no. 2 (2010):253–259.

Bollinger, L. E., et al., “Experimental measurements and theoretical analysis of detonation inductiondistances,” ARS Journal, May 1961: 588–595.

Burgess, M.J., Pressures Losses in Ducted Flows, London: Butterworth, 1971.

Chao, T. W., and J. E. Shepherd, “Comparison of Fracture Response of Preflawed under Internal Staticand Detonation Loading,” PVP2003-1957, 2003 AMSE Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference,Cleveland, OH, July 20–24, 2003. In 7th International Symposium on Emerging Technologies in Fluids,Structures, and Fluid-Structure Interactions, PVP Vol. 460 (2003): 129–144.

Chatrathi, K., “Deflagration Protection of Pipes,” Plant/Operations Progress 11 (1992): 116–120.

Chatrathi, K., J. E. Going, and B. Grandestaff, (2001), “Flame propagation in industrial scale piping,”Process Safety Progress 20, no. 4: 286–294.

Clanet, C., and G. Searby, “On the ‘Tulip Flame’ Phenomenon,” Combustion and Flame 105 (1996):225–238.

Donat C., “Apparatefestigkeit bei Beanspruchung durch Staubexplosionen,” VDI-Berichte [VDI-VerlagGmbH, Dusseldorf] 304 (1978): 139–149.

Eckhoff, R. K., Dust Explosions in the Process Industries, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991.

Frolov, S. M., “Fast Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition,” Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2, no.3 (2008): 442–455.

Going, J. E., K. Chatrathi, and K. Cashdollar, “Flammability limit measurements for dusts in 20-L and 1-m3vessels,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 13, no. 3 (2000): 209–219.

Going, J. E., and J. Snoeys, “Explosion Protection with Metal Dust Fuels,” Process Safety Progress, Vol.21, No. 4, December 2002.

Gonzalez, M., R. Borghi, and A. Saouab, “Interaction of a Flame Front with Its Self-Generated Flow in anEnclosure: The ‘Tulip Flame’ Phenomenon,” Combustion and Flame 88, no. 2 (1992): 201–220.

Green, D. W., Perry's Chemical Engineer’s Handbook, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.

Karnesky, J., Detonation induced strain in tubes, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology, 2010.

Kletz, T. A., “Nitrogen — Our Most Dangerous Gas,” Proceedings of the Third International Symposium onLoss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries, Swiss Society of Chemical Industries,1980.

Kuznetsov, M., et al., “Dynamic Effects Under Gaseous Detonation and Mechanical Response of PipingStructures,” 11/2009; DOI:101115/IMEC 2009-11643, in Proceedings of ASME 2009 InternationalMechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE2009), Lake Buena Vista, FL, Vol. 3, pp.115–124.

Lee, J. H. S., “Dynamic Properties of Gaseous Detonations,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 16(1984): 311–336.

Lohrer, C., M. Hahn, D. Arndt, and R. Grätz, “Einfluss Eines 90°-Rohrbogens in Einer TechnischenRohrleitung auf Reaktive Strömungen,” Chemie Ingenieur Technik 80, no. 5 (2008): 649–657.

McBride, B., and S. Gordon, Computer Program for Calculating and Fitting Thermodynamic Functions,NASA Reference Publication 1271, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, November 1992.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 2003.

Munday, G., “Detonations in Vessels and Pipelines,” The Chemical Engineer, April 1971: 135–144.

Nettleton, M. A., Gaseous Detonations, London: Chapman and Hall, 1987.

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, “Flame Acceleration and Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition in Nuclear


7 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Safety: State of the Art Report by a Group of Experts,” Issy-les-Moulineaux, France, August 2000.

Pasman, H. J., and C. J. M. van Wingerden, “Explosion Resistance of Process Equipment,” Proceedingsof the Conference on Flammable Dust Explosions, St. Louis, November 1988.

Peraldi, O., R. Knystautas, and J. H. Lee, Criteria for Transition to Detonation in Tubes, 21st Symposium(International) on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, 1988, 1629.

Phylactou Phylaktou , H., M. Foley, and G. E. Andrews, “Explosion Enhancement Through a 90° CurvedBend,” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1993, pp. 21–29.

Pritchard, D. K., “An Experiment and Theoretical Study of Blast Effects on Simple Structure (Cantilevers),”Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries, 4th International Symposium, Vol. 3(1983): D23.

Roy, G. D., S. M. Frolov, A. A. Borisov, and D. W. Netzer, “Pulse Detonation Propulsion: Challenges,Current Status, and Future Perspective,” Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30, no. 6 (2004):545–672.

Sato, K. S., Y. Sakai, and M. Chiga, Flame Propagation Along 90 Degree Bend in an Open Duct, 26thSymposium (International) on Combustion, 1996.

Schampel, K., Flammendurchschlagsicherungen (Bd. 170), Kontakt & Studium), Ehningen bei Böblingen;Expert-Verlag, 1988.

Shepherd, J. E. “Structural Response of Piping to Internal Gas Detonation,” Journal of Pressure VesselTechnology, Vol. 131, Issue 3, 2009.

Technical Regulations for Flammable Liquids (TRbF) 20, Germany.

Thomas, G. O., “The Response of Pipes and Supports to Internal Pressure Loads Generated by GaseousDetonations,” ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 124, 66 (2002).

Thomas, G. O., and Williams, R. L., “Detonation Interaction with Wedges and Bends,” Shock Waves 11(2002): 481–492.

Thomas, G. O., et al., “Flame acceleration and transition to detonation in pipes,” Draft report on behalf ofPIPEX Consortium, 15/9/99.

Thomas, G. O., N. Lamoureux, and G. L. Oakley, “Establishment Limits of Fuel-Oxygen Detonations inPipes at Ambient and Elevated Temperatures and Pressures for a Low Energy Ignition Source,” ReportUWA/070600, 2000, University of Wales Aberystwyth, Department of Physics.

Williams, R., “Experimental DDT measurements in pure hydrogen/oxygen mixtures in pipes,” BNFL,unpublished talk, 23rd UKELG Discussion Meeting on Deflagration to Detonation Transition, ICI Runcorn,21/4/98.

Zhou, B., A. Sobiesiak, and P. Quan, “Flame Behavior and Flame-Induced Flow in a Closed RectangularDuct with a 90 Degree Bend,” International Journal of Thermal Sciences 45 (2006): 457–474.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: This is an editorial correction.

Response Message:


8 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Ballot Results


29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.

Affirmative All



Davies, Michael

Davis, Randal R.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.


Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Rodgers, Samuel A.


Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


9 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Second Revision No. 11-NFPA 67-2015 [ Section No. 2.4 ]

2.4 References for Extracts in Advisory Sections.

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

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




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The definition of "flame arrester" has been added in Chapter 3 and extracted from NFPA69.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.

Affirmative All



Davies, Michael


10 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Davis, Randal R.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.


Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Rodgers, Samuel A.


Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


11 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM


3.3.1 Burning Velocity ( S U ) .

The rate of flame propagation relative to the velocity of the unburned gas that is ahead of it. [68, 2013]

3.3.1.1 Fundamental Burning Velocity.

The burning velocity of a laminar flame under stated conditions of composition, temperature, and pressureof the unburned gas. [68, 2013]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Mar 31 12:24:05 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Su is used in equations within NFPA 67 and needs to be defined.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

19 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.

Affirmative All



Davies, Michael


12 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Davis, Randal R.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.

Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Rodgers, Samuel A.


Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.

Negative with Comment


The "fundamental" burning velocity definition should be removed. This term is not used anywhere in the standard.It is also not clear what "under stated conditions of composition, temperature and pressure" refers to. Any burningvelocity value will be obtained at a given composition, temperature and pressure. The definition of burning velocitymust also be updated to indicate that it refers to the laminar value.


13 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Second Revision No. 5-NFPA 67-2015 [ New Section after 3.3.8 ]

3.3.9* Flame Arrester.

A device that prevents the transmission of a flame through a flammable gas/air mixture by quenchingthe flame on the surfaces of an array of small passages through which the flame must pass. [ 69, 2014]

Supplemental Information

File Name Description

SR-5_A.3.3.9.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The term flame arrester is used throughout the document, and providing an appropriatedefinition is correcting an oversight. The definition is extracted from NFPA 69.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.


14 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Affirmative All



Davies, Michael

Davis, Randal R.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.


Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Rodgers, Samuel A.


Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


15 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

SR-5, New annex material

A.3.3.9 Flame Arrester.

The emerging gases are sufficiently cooled to prevent ignition on the protected side. [NFPA 69, 2014].

Second Revision No. 6-NFPA 67-2015 [ Section No. 6.2.3.6.2 [Excluding any

Sub-Sections] ]

Physical barriers are fast-acting valves that provide a mechanical barrier against the flame front of anexplosion. The mechanical barrier is activated to assume a closed position, thus blocking the cross sectionof a duct. The closing time strongly depends on the diameter of the pipe and . For example, in oneparticular design the closing time varies from 10 ms for a 50 mm diameter up to 67 ms for a diameter of650 mm. Explosion isolation valves must be sufficiently strong to withstand the high pressure of anexplosion. For deflagrations starting at or below atmospheric pressure, pressure resistance to 10 to 20bar-g is sufficient. For detonations, generated overpressures are so high (particularly due to reflectedpressures) that application of an isolation valve alone is not a reliable solution. However, in combinationwith other systems (venting, explosion suppression) whose actions reduce the pressure reaching thevalve, such a solution is practicable (Going and Snoeys, 2002). After every action, the fast-acting valves(i.e., gate valve, slide valve, pinch valve, float valve, and flap valve) must be reopened. In the case of anexplosive charge or pressure-actuated valves, some parts, such as the driving force (explosive charge orpressurized cartridge) and a shock absorber, have to be replaced. The replacement operation is short —typically less than 1 hour. (See NFPA 69 for maintenance and additional limitations.)




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Keeping the order of magnitude of the closing time is important, but it was not intended tobe universal.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.


16 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.

Affirmative All



Davies, Michael

Davis, Randal R.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.


Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Rodgers, Samuel A.


Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


17 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Second Revision No. 7-NFPA 67-2015 [ Section No. 7.5.1.3 ]

7.5.1.3

Cross-section reductions in piping have to be located a distance of at least 120 pipe diameters before thedetonation flame arrester.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The distance should be 120 pipe diameters or greater.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.

Affirmative All



Davies, Michael

Davis, Randal R.

Feldkamp, Robert J.


18 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.


Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Rodgers, Samuel A.


Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


19 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM


8.2.2

Assuming simplified assumption such as the boundary conditions being constant over time and neglectingradiation losses, which is valid for small gaps, the critical Pecrit number can be expressed by the

following:

[8.2.2]

where:

ρ um = density of the unburnt mixture

S U = laminar burning velocity

c bm = specific heat of the burnt mixture

d crit = hydraulic diameter of the gap that leads to quenching

λ um = thermal conductivity of the unburnt mixture



equation_8.2.2.jpg




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

In the interest of consistency, the term for burning velocity in the equation is changed toSu.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


20 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Not Returned


Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.

Affirmative All



Davies, Michael

Davis, Randal R.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.


Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Rodgers, Samuel A.


Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


21 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM


9.1.3

The distance between the deflagration flame arrester and the possible ignition location and the fittingsarranged hereto have to correspond to the stipulated requirements as per the EC type examinationcertificate Detonation arresters can be used for open and closed pipe work to prevent flame propagationfrom the unprotected side to the protected side of the pipe work .

9.1.3.1

High stresses exerted on the fixing points of the flame arrester and on the unprotected side of thepiping, especially in the case of a detonation , should be considered; stresses from adjoining pipe workshould be limited to acceptable levels by appropriate installation, construction, and selection of material.

9.1.3.2

Detonation arresters should be installed in a way that they can be easily maintained. They should beinstalled close to the plant component to be protected or close to the ignition source, if known (e.g., anincinerator).

9.1.3.3

The nominal sizes of the pipelines connected on the side of the ignition source (i.e., the unprotectedside) should be less than or equal to the devices’ nominal size. The pipe diameter on the protected sideshould be no less than the pipe diameter on the unprotected side.

9.1.3.4

Flame pressures and velocities can be enhanced by upstream turbulence, which can be caused byvalves, bends, or any change of cross section in the pipe. Shut-off valves can be installed in a pipeline ifthey are maintained fully open during operation and do not reduce the free flow area.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The new text provides additional guidance on proper application of detonation arresters.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


22 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Not Returned


Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.

Affirmative All



Davies, Michael

Davis, Randal R.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.


Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Rodgers, Samuel A.


Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


23 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM


10.4.1 Thermally Regenerated.

To avoid hot spotting resulting from adsorption heat release, the vapor concentration is brought down to50 percent below LFL. This measure, if controlled properly, is the primary measure for explosionprevention. Additional explosion isolation measures are needed since the carbon adsorption vessels arenot designed to be explosion-pressure proof, and during the regenerative cycles it cannot be ensured thatthe vapor air mixture will remain below 50 percent of LFL. For that reason, secondary measures in theform of flame arresters are recommended for enhancing safety. Figure 10.4.1 shows the recommendedposition of different flame and detonation arresters. The inlet line to the carbon adsorption unit should beequipped with a detonation arrester (1 in the figure), because the distance of the ignition source might bea long way. Additionally, the bypass line should be equipped with end-of-line endurance burning flamearresters (2 in the figure) for process upset conditions. In addition, it is recommended that eitherend-of-line flame arresters or in-line flame arresters be installed at the discharge side of the adsorptionvessel. The inlet side of the adsorption vessel should be equipped with in-line detonation arresters orexplosion volume–proof flame arresters (Schampel, 1988).

Figure 10.4.1 Protection Strategy for One Type of a Typical Thermal Regenerated CarbonAdsorption Unit for Solvent Recovery .


Submitter Full Name: LAURA MONTVILLE

Organization: NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: This caption is revised to differentiate from Figure 10.4.2.1.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


24 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM


29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.

Affirmative All



Davies, Michael

Davis, Randal R.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.


Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Rodgers, Samuel A.


Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


25 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM


10.4.2 Vacuum-Regenerated Carbon Bed Adsorption Systems . (Reserved)

10.4.2.1

Carbon bed flammable vapor adsorption systems often use vacuum regeneration of the carbon bedafter it has been highly saturated with hydrocarbons. Flammable vapor-air mixtures can form in pipingleading to the adsorbing mode carbon bed, and in the piping between the vacuum pump and the twincarbon bed unit operating in the vacuum generation mode. ( See Figure 10.4.2.1 ) .

Figure 10.4.2.1 Typical Simplified Diagram of a Vacuum-Regenerated Carbon Adsorption Unit.

10.4.2.2

Although many of these systems have operated safely for a long time, the potential for an ignitionsource to occur in the equipment or instrumentation connected to this flammable mixture piping cannotbe ruled out. During the desorbing process the dry running vacuum pump can potentially act as anignition source. High temperatures in the active carbon bed due to high inlet vapor loads can alsorepresent a potential ignition source. The result would be flame propagation and explosion developmentin the piping.

10.4.2.3

Explosion protection considerations for the pertinent piping in these systems should consist first of ananalysis of the piping strength and the potential closed vessel deflagration pressures associated withpertinent hydrocarbon vapor–air mixtures. The potential for deflagration-to-detonation transition in thepiping should also be evaluated.

10.4.2.4

Based on the results of the evaluations described in 10.4.2.3 , the need for a deflagration arrester ordetonation arrester should be determined. Special requirements in regards to temperature and pressureneed to be considered if dry running vacuum pumps are equipped with in-line flame or detonationarresters. The decision making analysis and conclusions should be documented and reviewed as part ofany management of change analysis.



Carbon_Adsorb-Absorb_process_LM_edits.jpg Figure 10.4.2.1



26 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM



Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Information on vacuum regenerated carbon adsorption units has been added to the “reserved”section created at the First Draft Meeting.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


29 Eligible Voters

9 Not Returned

20 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned


Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Gillis, Joseph P.

Kirby, David C.

Morrison, Luke S.

Paavola, James O.

Rooker, Mitchel L.

Trull, David E.

Affirmative All



Davies, Michael

Davis, Randal R.

Feldkamp, Robert J.

Guaricci, Dan A.

Hard, Michael D.

Herrmann, David D.


Johnson, Eric R.

Mayer, Gerd Ph.

McCoy, Steven A.

Rodgers, Samuel A.



27 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

Stevenson, Bill

Stottmann, David R.

Stuart, Stephen M.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Ural, Erdem A.

Zalosh, Robert G.


28 of 28 5/29/2015 12:44 PM

first draft meeting ppt - nfpa … · subject: nfpa 67 second draft tc final ballot results (f2015...

Documents