report on proposals f2007 — copyright, nfpa nfpa 497€¦ · submitter: robert t. ford, safety...

497-�

Report on Proposals F2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 497 Report of the Committee on

Electrical Equipment in Chemical Atmospheres

James G. Stallcup, ChairGrayboy, Inc., TX [SE]

A. W. Ballard, Crouse-Hinds, NY [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Edward M. Briesch, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] Steven R. Carlson, Pfizer Inc., MI [U] Mark Driscoll, Swiss Re, Global Asset Protection Services, MA [I] William T. Fiske, Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc., NY [RT] William G. Lawrence, Jr., FM Global, MA [I] Robert Malanga, Fire and Risk Engineering, NJ [SE] Joseph V. Saverino, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., PA [U] Richard F. Schwab, Honeywell, Inc., NJ [U] Sukanta Sengupta, FMC Corporation, NJ [U] David B. Wechsler, The Dow Chemical Company, TX [U] Rep. American Chemistry Council Jack H. Zewe, Electrical Consultants Inc., LA [SE]

Alternates

Donald W. Ankele, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to Edward M. Briesch) Samuel A. Rodgers, Honeywell, Inc., VA [U] (Alt. to Richard F. Schwab) James W. Stallcup, Jr., Grayboy, Inc., TX [SE] (Alt. to James G. Stallcup) Dann Strube, Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc., IN [RT] (Alt. to William T. Fiske)

Nonvoting

George H. St. Onge, Shelbyville, DE (Member Emeritus)

Staff Liaison: Jeffrey S. Sargent

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on (�) developing data on the properties of chemicals enabling proper selection of electrical equipment for use in atmospheres containing flammable gases, vapors or dusts; (2) making recommendations for the prevention of fires and explosions through the use of continuously purged, pressurized, explosion-proof, or dust-ignition-proof electrical equipment where installed in such chemical atmospheres.

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book.

The Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment in Chemical Atmospheres is presenting three Reports for adoption, as follows:

Report I: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2003 edition. NFPA 496-2003 is published in Volume 9 of the 2006 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

The report on NFPA 496 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment in Chemical Atmospheres, which consists of �3 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

Report II: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to 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, 2004 edition. NFPA 497-2004 is published in Volume �4 of the 2006 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.


Report III: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 499, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous (Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas, 2004 edition. NFPA 499-2004 is published in Volume �4 of the 2006 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.


497-2

Report on Proposals F2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 497 _______________________________________________________________ 497-� Log #� Final Action: Accept in Principle (1.1.7) _______________________________________________________________ NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 497-3 (Log #1) which was held from the November 2003 ROC on Proposal N/A. Submitter: Robert T. Ford, Safety Management Services, Inc. Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: �-�.7 This recommended practice does not apply to locations where propellant, explosives, pyrotechnics, and blasting agents may be present during normal or abnormal conditions. Substantiation: The NFPA and NEC do not address the unique hazards pertaining to electrical equipment in proximity to propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics, and blasting agents. Application of NFPA 496, 497, 499 and NEC Article 500 to locations where these materials are present during normal or abnormal conditions may result in serious personal injury or death and/or facility damage or loss. Corresponding proposals have been submitted. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise recommended text to read: �.�.6 This recommended practice does not apply to locations where explosives, pyrotechnics, and blasting agents may be present during normal or abnormal conditions. Committee Statement: The committee has deleted “propellants” because it is too general of a term and could preclude materials such as aerosol products, from being covered by this standard. Deleting “propellants” from the recommended text aligns with a similar action taken by CMP-�4 in Fine Print Note No. � to Section 500.� of NEC. The paragraph number has been corrected to correlate with the numbering of Section �.� in the 2004 edition of NFPA 497. Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Driscoll, M., Sengupta, S. Explanation of Negative: RODGERS, S.: I agree with comment by Mr. Wechsler. WECHSLER, D.: Committee action should have been to reject this proposal. While I think I understand the submitter’s problem, what is being proposed and the action taken by the Committee in my opinion will unfortunately not resolve the submitter’s problem but will instead create more problems. To begin with the exclusion is too general. Just because an “area” or a “location” has blasting agents, pyrotechnics, etc. does not mean that certain portions of the operation or other locational criteria, which may involve flammable gases, liquids or combustible liquids, vapors or dusts, and therefore should not be required to reviewed as appropriate for the installation and use of special electrical equipment, i.e. the assessment for a hazardous (classified) location. The proposed action of this exemption would be like suggesting that the application of 497 and 499 would not apply to boilers, furnaces or fired vessels because of the nature of the flame being present. This is simply not correct. The assessment needs to be made if flammable gases, flammable vapors, combustible liquid produced vapors, etc, are or a likely to be present in ignitible concentrations per NFPA 70, Article 500. The Committee actions to delete propellants because of Article 500, FPN No.� should again consider what the 500 fpn really states. It does not address the “area” or “location” or “electrical equipment”, but rather correctly states that the nature of the hazards for explosives, pyrotechnics, etc. materials is not addressed. This fpn is a true statement and it perhaps should have been a fpn to both NFPA 497 and NFPA 499. Despite the justification provided by the submitter, NFPA clearly address explosives, pyrotechnics within NFPA 5000, NFPA �, NFPA ��24 and NFPA ��26. Additionally blasting agents and Explosives are addressed in NFPA 495. It should be within these documents that the submitter should be addressing refinements. Lastly, the submitter has provided no support to the statement that the application of the criteria within NFPA 497, 499 and Article 500 may result in serious personal injury or death. _______________________________________________________________ 497-2 Log #CP� Final Action: Accept in Part (Chapter 3 Definitions (GOT)) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment in Chemical Atmospheres, Recommendation: Adopt the preferred definitions from the NFPA Glossary of Terms for the following terms: Combustible Liquid. (preferred) Boilerplate Any liquid that has a closed-cup flash point at or above 37.8°C (�00°F). Combustible Liquid. (secondary) NFPA 497, 2004 ed. Any liquid that has a closed-cup flash point at or above �00°F (37.8°C), as determined by the test procedures and apparatus set forth in NFPA 30. Combustible liquids are classified as Class II or Class III combustible liquids. Combustible Material. (preferred) Boilerplate: NFPA 220, 2005 ed. Any material that will burn, regardless of its autoignition temperature. Combustible Material. (secondary) NFPA 497, 2004 ed.

A generic term used to describe a flammable gas, flammable liquid produced vapor, or combustible liquid produced vapor mixed with air that may burn or explode. Flammable Liquid. (preferred) Boilerplate: NFPA 30, 2003 ed. A liquid that has a closed-cup flash point that is below 37.8°C (�00°F) and a maximum vapor pressure of 2068 mm Hg (40 psia) at 37.8°C (�00°F). Flammable Liquid. (secondary) NFPA 497, 2004 ed. Any liquid that has a closed-cup flash point below �00°F (37.8°C), as determined by the test procedures and apparatus set forth in NFPA 30. Flammable liquids are classified as Class I liquids, Class IA liquids, Class IB liquids, and Class IC liquids. Flammable Liquid, Class IA. (preferred) Boilerplate Any liquid that has a flash point below 22.8°C (73°F) and a boiling point below 37.8°C (�00°F). Flammable Liquid, Class IA Liquids. (secondary) NFPA 497, 2004 ed. Those liquids that have flash points below 73°F (22.8°C) and boiling points below �00°F (37.8°C). Flammable Liquid, Class IB. (preferred) Boilerplate Any liquid that has a flash point below 22.8°C (73°F) and a boiling point at or above 37.8°C (�00°F). Flammable Liquid, Class IB Liquids. (secondary) NFPA 497, 2004 ed. Those liquids that have flash points below 73°F (22.8°C) and boiling points at or above �00°F (37.8°C). Flammable Liquid Class IC. (preferred) Boilerplate Any liquid that has a flash point at or above 22.8°C (73°F), but below 37.8°C (�00°F). Flammable Liquid, Class IC Liquids. (secondary) NFPA 497, 2004 ed. Those liquids that have flash points at or above 73°F (22.8°C), but below �00°F (37.8°C). Flash Point. (preferred) Boilerplate: NFPA 30, 2003 ed. The minimum temperature at which a liquid or a solid emits vapor sufficient to form an ignitable mixture with air near the surface of the liquid or the solid. Flash Point. (secondary) NFPA 68, 2002 ed.; NFPA 497, 2004 ed. The minimum temperature at which a liquid gives off vapor in sufficient concentration to form an ignitable mixture with air near the surface of the liquid, as specified by test. Ignitable Mixture. (preferred) NFPA 77, 2000 ed. A gas-air, vapor-air, mist-air, or dust-air mixture, or combinations of such mixtures, that can be ignited by a sufficiently strong source of energy, such as a static electric discharge. Ignitable Mixture. (secondary) NFPA 497, 2004 ed. A combustible material that is within its flammable range. Substantiation: Adoption of preferred definitions will assist the user by providing consistent meaning of defined terms throughout the National Fire Codes. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Part This committee proposal was developed by NFPA staff on behalf of the Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment in Chemical Atmospheres for the reasons stated in the substantiation. The committee accepts the recommended preferred definition of “combustible dust”, but wishes to retain the secondary definitions of “combustible material”, “and “ignitable mixture” that are in the 2004 edition of NFPA 497. Committee Statement: The EECA committee will seek Standards Council approval for retaining these two secondary definitions for the following reasons: �. Combustible Material-The secondary definition of “combustible material” is unique to NFPA 499 in its usage as a generic term limited to gases, vapors, etc. 2. Ignitable Mixture - The secondary definition of “ignitable mixture” correlates with the current NFPA 497 definitions of ‘combustible material”. The preferred definition of ignitable material is more generic and covers other ignitible mixtures besides gases and vapors. The preferred definition only discusses “static electric discharge” and similar strong sources of energy as ignition source whereas NFPA 497 also addresses high surface temperature of electrical equipment as a potential ignition source. Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �� Ballot Not Returned: 2 Driscoll, M., Sengupta, S. _______________________________________________________________ 497-3 Log #CP3 Final Action: Accept (Table 4.4.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment in Chemical Atmospheres, Recommendation: Make the following corrections and additions to Table 4.4.2 �. Revise the vapor density value for Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) from 0.2 to 3.2. 2. Revise the flash point for Ethylene to -�36 degrees C. 3. Add/Correct Class I Zone Groups, MESG values and indication of classified by test as shown in marked up Table 4.4.2.

497-3

Report on Proposals F2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 497

497-4


497-5


497-6


497-7


497-8


497-9


497-�0


497-��


497-�2

Report on Proposals F2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 497 Substantiation: The committee has recommended the revisions to Table 4.4.2 for the following reasons: �. This action corrects an error in the vapor density value for MBTE expressed in the 2004 edition. The new value promotes proper classification of areas in which MBTE is used as it is now correctly expressed as a heavier-than-air vapor. 2. Correction of flashpoint value. 3. The addition of Zone designations and MESG values for selected chemicals provides information that is necessary for proper application of electrical equipment in areas in which the selected chemical is present. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �� Ballot Not Returned: 2 Driscoll, M., Sengupta, S. Comment on Affirmative: RODGERS, S.: I agree with comment by Mr. Wechsler. The committee action does not state the source of the new values or concurrence with data from other NFPA projects. While the table as listed in the document is suitable for users, the committee would be better served by maintaining a similar committee record document indicating the source for each data element in the table. WECHSLER, D.: While I do not disagree with the Committee action, at our last face-to-face meeting, when the values in this table were discussed, my notes reflect agreement that any changes would be fully documented to indicate at a minimum the source for the change, and as applicable the testing conditions, when the test was made, or other appropriate information. This action was to aid Committee members in future work to better understand the nature of changes made. This was an important learning from the major revision made to the table some years ago. If we cannot provide this supportive information we should not be making changes. For example what is the basis for revising the flash point of ethylene, a gas, to -�36 C and also for not reflecting this value in the table as a revised change? Additionally does this changed value, as well as those others correlate with the actions of the NFPA Chemical Physical Property Committee? _______________________________________________________________ 497-4 Log #3 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.4.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steven R. Carlson, Pfizer Global Manufacturing Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Equipment or rooms handling a wet product cake in pharmaceutical plants can be considered unclassified as the residual carrier liquid, often flammable, is bound in a heavy slurry limiting evaporation and flashing potential. The equipment in question normally includes tray driers where a thick slurry is loaded onto trays for drying purposes. Substantiation: Prior to final drying of a pharmaceutical product, the slurry is manually loaded onto trays to be loaded into drying ovens. The small amount of flammable liquid present would not be adequate to build a flammable atmosphere outside the dryers. This practice is ongoing in unclassified areas currently and has been for over 50 years at our site without issue. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: The Committee Action on Proposal 497-5 (Log #4) addresses the concern expressed in the recommendation. Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Driscoll, M., Sengupta, S. Explanation of Negative: RODGERS, S.: The committee action should have been to reject. While I agree with much of Mr. Wechsler’s comment, this document and NEC additionally require that normal, i.e. routine, as well as abnormal operations be considered. The submitter only addresses normal conditions in his proposal and substantiation and the committee only addresses normal conditions in the committee action. Elimination of consideration of abnormal conditions is not in compliance with NEC definitions of hazardous (classified) locations. WECHSLER, D.: Committee action should have been to accept in principle these proposals with the principle being that atmospheres, in which non-ignitable concentrations of flammables may be present, may be considered as being unclassified locations. There are probably hundreds of cases being made for determining that locations should be unclassified and it is not the responsibility nor duty of this Committee to revise this standard to address each specific case. The submitter seems to be offering a valid condition for arriving at an unclassified condition. Throughout this code, the focus has been on ignitible concentrations. While 25% LFL may be a good guidance value, there is no basis upon which the text offered by the Committee action can be supported. For example, What is a routine use? How will it be determined that a gas or vapor will not attain 25% LFL? If gas detectors are used, can a one time check be done to validate this 25% LFL condition? How small is a small quantity? The public would have been better served if the NFPA 70 Article 500, unclassified definition had been extracted and used in this document. Then more clearly materials that could be released and would not be in ignitible concentrations could more easily be considered as being unclassified locations.

This statement could then be added as a new 5.4.6, “A location in which a PPM concentration which is incapable of becoming an ignitable concentration, but which may exist during a normal conditions may be considered unclassified.” _______________________________________________________________ 497-5 Log #4 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.4.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steven R. Carlson, Pfizer Global Manufacturing Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: Areas where environmental monitoring has confirmed that routine activities such as cleaning with a flammable liquid will not produce vapor sufficient to reach 25 percent of the LFL of that chemical shall be considered unclassified. Substantiation: Small quantities of flammable liquids are routinely handled by production and maintenance personnel to facilitate cleaning and sterilization of equipment in food service and pharmaceutical plants. Environmental monitoring to address OSHA exposure limits can be used to prove a nonflammable atmosphere for routine activities involving flammable liquids (such as cleaning). Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise proposed text to read: Areas where routine use of flammable liquids, gases, or vapors will not produce gas or vapor sufficient to reach 25 percent of the LFL of that combustible material are considered unclassified. Committee Statement: The Committee Action makes this a more general application and meets the intent of the submitter’s recommendation. Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Driscoll, M., Sengupta, S. Explanation of Negative: RODGERS, S.: See my comment on Proposal 497-4 (Log #3). WECHSLER, D.: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Proposal 497-4 (Log #3). _______________________________________________________________ 497-6 Log #5 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.4.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Steven R. Carlson, Pfizer Global Manufacturing Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Locations where combustible material are handled in small quantities for cleaning and other routine activities. Containers containing less than 3 gallons of a Class C or D liquid would not require special consideration in regard to electrical classification in an adequately ventilated area. Substantiation: Small quantities of flammable liquids are routinely handled by production and maintenance personnel to facilitate cleaning and sterilization of equipment in food service and pharmaceutical plants. This liquid is handled in bottles and buckets carried to the job site for wash down or wipe down tasks. A flammable atmosphere would not present itself unless a catastrophic event happened where the bucket was dumped on an extremely hot surface causing rapid vaporization. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: The Committee Action on Proposal 497-5 (Log #4) addresses the concern expressed in the recommendation. Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 2 Driscoll, M., Sengupta, S. Explanation of Negative: RODGERS, S.: See my comment on Proposal 497-4 (Log #3). WECHSLER, D.: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Proposal 497-4 (Log #3). _______________________________________________________________ 497-7 Log #2 Final Action: Reject (Annex B) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: George Suter, Swiss Safety Institute Recommendation: In order to estimate MESG of a mixture the summation in Le Chateliers equation should comprise only the flammable components. Otherwise too large MESG estimates will result. Thus in the example Nitroge should not be included in the summation, which will increase the xi values of all other components and thus decrease the resulting MESG. Substantiation: Including non-combustible component leads to non-logical result, which can easily demonstrated by applying the formula to a mixture (A) of methane and nitrogen 50 percent :50 percent. The result would be 2.24 i.e. twice the value of methane. However if we prepare an explosive mixture of mixture A �0 percent and air 90 percent we will obtain a total mixture of 5 percent methane, �8 percent oxygen and 77 percent nitrogen, which is almost identical to the mixture of 5 percent methane in air (5 percent methane, 76 percent nitrogen and �9 percent oxygen) for which the MESG is �.�2. Other acknowledged approxiations do NOT include non-flammable components too: E.Brandes, G.März, T.Redeker, PTB-Bericht W-69, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Braunschweig (�997) Committee Meeting Action: Reject

497-�3

Report on Proposals F2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 497 Committee Statement: The purpose of the example is to show the effect of inert gas on MESG and the current example sufficiently expresses this. This example is not intended to be an exact reflection of Le Chatelier’s equation. Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �0 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 2 Driscoll, M., Sengupta, S. Explanation of Negative: RODGERS, S.: The committee action should have been Accept, on the basis of the submitter’s substantiation. The MESG test methods vary the ratio of the fuel or fuel mixture to air to create the ignitable mixture and determine a minimum gap. If the committee includes nitrogen in the fuel mixture, then the theoretical ignitable mixture included in the submitter’s substantiation is a correct representation. The affect of added inert is most important when this causes the available oxygen (oxidant) quantity in the ignited mixture to be less than required for complete combustion. The current relationship for MESG of mixtures overstates the affect of inerts and produces a result which is non-conserative. The referenced paper by Brandes, et al, additionally includes data and methods for evaluating the MESG of fuel mixtures on the basis of an oxygen balance. This alternate method accounts for significant deviations from the molar average (Le Chatelier) method currently in the document. Comment on Affirmative: BRIESCH, E.: Although I agree with the Committee Action to reject this proposal, my experience with MESG testing of mixtures indicates that the application of Le Chateliers principle to estimate the MESG of a mixture as given in Annex B, does not work well and should not be applied in the following situations: �. Two component mixtures where one of the components is an inert, such as nitrogen 2. Mixtures that have oxygen as one of the components 3. Mixtures that have large concentrations (over 5%) of carbon monoxide 4. Mixtures that contain acetylene I would recommend revising the last sentence of the first paragraph under B.� to include items �-3 above. The restriction relative to acetylene is already covered.

FORM FOR COMMENTS ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2007 FALL REVISION CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EST, 3/2/2007

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 617-770-3000

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #: Date Rec'd:

Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download

(Note: In choosing the download option you intend to view the ROP/ROC from our Website; no copy will be sent to you.) Date________________Name________________________________________________Tel. No.

Company _________________________________________________________________________________________________

Street Address_________________________________City________________________State______Zip _________________

Please Indicate Organization Represented (if any)_______________________________________________________________

1. a) NFPA Document Title___________________________________ NFPA No. & Year_______

b) Section/Paragraph _____________________________________

2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): ________________

3. Comment recommends: (check one) new text revised text deleted text 4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): (Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format: i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote

ording to be deleted (w deleted wording). _________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that will be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your comment including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it

ay be abstracted for publication.) _____________________________________________________________________m

6. Copyright Assignment

a) □ I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in this Comment.

b) □ Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source)____________________________________________________________________________

I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment. Signature (Required) _____________________________________

PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT • NFPA Fax: (617) 770-3500

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council, National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269 11/1/2005

viii

Sequence of Events Leading to Issuance of an NFPA Committee Document

Step 1 Call for Proposals

▼ Proposed new Document or new edition of an existing Document is entered into one of two yearly revision cycles, and a Call for Proposals is published.

Step 2 Report on Proposals (ROP)

▼ Committee meets to act on Proposals, to develop its own Proposals, and to prepare its Report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Proposals. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Proposals (ROP) is published for public review and comment.

Step 3 Report on Comments (ROC)

▼ Committee meets to act on Public Comments to develop its own Comments, and to prepare its report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Comments. If two-thirds approve, Reports goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Comments (ROC) is published for public review.

Step 4 Technical Committee Report Session

▼ “Notices of intent to make a motion” are filed, are reviewed, and valid motions are certified for presentation at the Technical Committee Report Session. (“Consent Documents” that have no certified motions bypass the Technical Committee Report Session and proceed to the Standards Council for issuance.)

▼ NFPA membership meets each June at the Annual Meeting Technical Committee Report Session and acts on Technical Committee Reports (ROP and ROC) for Documents with “certified amending motions.”

▼ Committee(s) vote on any amendments to Report approved at NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

Step 5 Standards Council Issuance

▼ Notification of intent to file an appeal to the Standards Council on Association action must be filed within 20 days of the NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

▼ Standards Council decides, based on all evidence, whether or not to issue Document or to take other action, including hearing any appeals.

ix

The Technical Committee Report Session of the NFPA Annual Meeting

The process of public input and review does not end with the publication of the ROP and ROC. Following the completion of the Proposal and Comment periods, there is yet a further opportunity for debate and discussion through the Technical Committee Report Sessions that take place at the NFPA Annual Meeting.

The Technical Committee Report Session provides an opportunity for the final Technical Committee Report (i.e., the ROP and ROC) on each proposed new or revised code or standard to be presented to the NFPA membership for the debate and consideration of motions to amend the Report. The specific rules for the types of motions that can be made and who can make them are set forth in NFPA’s rules, which should always be consulted by those wishing to bring an issue before the membership at a Technical Committee Report Session. The following presents some of the main features of how a Report is handled.

What Amending Motions Are Allowed. The Technical Committee Reports contain many Proposals and Comments that the Technical Committee has rejected or revised in whole or in part. Actions of the Technical Committee published in the ROP may also eventually be rejected or revised by the Technical Committee during the development of its ROC. The motions allowed by NFPA rules provide the opportunity to propose amendments to the text of a proposed code or standard based on these published Proposals, Comments, and Committee actions. Thus, the list of allowable motions include motions to accept Proposals and Comments in whole or in part as submitted or as modified by a Technical Committee action. Motions are also available to reject an accepted Comment in whole or part. In addition, motions can be made to return an entire Technical Committee Report or a portion of the Report to the Technical Committee for further study.

The NFPA Annual Meeting, also known as the World Safety Conference and Exposition®, takes place in June of each year. A second Fall membership meeting was discontinued in 2004, so the NFPA Technical Committee Report Session now runs once each year at the Annual Meeting in June.

Who Can Make Amending Motions. Those authorized to make these motions are also regulated by NFPA rules. In many cases, the maker of the motion is limited by NFPA rules to the original submitter of the Proposal or Comment or his or her duly authorized representative. In other cases, such as a Motion to Reject an accepted Comment, or to Return a Technical Committee Report or a portion of a Technical Committee Report for Further Study, anyone can make these motions. For a complete explanation, NFPA rules should be consulted.

The Filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Before making an allowable motion at a Technical Committee Report Session, the intended maker of the motion must file, in advance of the session, and within the published deadline, a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. A Motions Committee appointed by the Standards Council then reviews all notices and certifies all amending motions that are proper. The Motions Committee can also, in consultation with the makers of the motions, clarify the intent of the motions and, in certain circumstances, combine motions that are dependent on each other together so that they can be made in one single motion. A Motions Committee report is then made available in advance of the meeting listing all certified motions. Only these Certified Amending Motions, together with certain allowable Follow-Up Motions (that is, motions that have become necessary as a result of previous successful amending motions) will be allowed at the Technical Committee Report Session.

Consent Documents. Often there are codes and standards up for consideration by the membership that will be noncontroversial, and no proper Notices of Intent to Make a Motion will be filed. These “Consent Documents” will bypass the Technical Committee Report Session and head straight to the Standards Council for issuance. The remaining Documents are then forwarded to the Technical Committee Report Session for consideration of the NFPA membership.

x

Action on Motions at the Technical Committee Report Session. In order to actually make a Certified Amending Motion at the Technical Committee Report Session, the maker of the motion must sign in at least an hour before the session begins. In this way, a final list of motions can be set in advance of the session. At the session, each proposed Document up for consideration is presented by a motion to adopt the Technical Committee Report on the Document. Following each such motion, the presiding officer in charge of the session opens the floor to motions on the Document from the final list of Certified Amending Motions followed by any permissible Follow-Up Motions. Debate and voting on each motion proceeds in accordance with NFPA rules. NFPA membership is not required in order to make or speak to a motion, but voting is limited to NFPA members who have joined at least 180 days prior to the session and have registered for the meeting. At the close of debate on each motion, voting takes place, and the motion requires a majority vote to carry. In order to amend a Technical Committee Report, successful amending motions must be confirmed by the responsible Technical Committee, which conducts a written ballot on all successful amending motions following the meeting and prior to the Document being forwarded to the Standards Council for issuance.

Standards Council Issuance

One of the primary responsibilities of the NFPA Standards Council, as the overseer of the NFPA codes and standards development process, is to act as the official issuer of all NFPA codes and standards. When it convenes to issue NFPA documents it also hears any appeals related to the Document. Appeals are an important part of assuring that all NFPA rules have been followed and that due process and fairness have been upheld throughout the codes and standards development process. The Council considers appeals both in writing and through the conduct of hearings at which all interested parties can participate. It decides appeals based on the entire record of the process as well as all submissions on the appeal. After deciding all appeals related to a Document before it, the Council, if appropriate, proceeds to issue the Document as an official NFPA code or standard, recommended practice or guide. Subject only to limited review by the NFPA Board of Directors, the decision of the Standards Council is final, and the new NFPA document becomes effective twenty days after Standards Council issuance. The illustration on page 9 provides an overview of the entire process, which takes approximately two full years to complete.