technical committee on handling and conveying of … · 2018. 5. 10. · technical committee on...

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON HANDLING AND CONVEYING OFDUSTS, VAPORS, AND GASES

NFPA 654 Second Draft Meeting AgendaMay 15-16, 2018 8AM-5PM MST

Hampton Inn & Suites Denver - Downtown1845 Sherman St, Denver, CO

Note: Continental Breakfast will be available in the meeting room starting at 7:30 each day, and lunch will be provided on the first day.

1. Welcome. Mark Runyon, Chair

2. Introductions and Update of Committee Roster. (Attachment A)

3. Approval of Meeting Minutes from August 1-2, 2018. (Attachment B)

4. Staff updates. Laura Moreno, NFPA Staff

a) Committee membership update.

b) Annual 2019 revision cycle schedule. (Attachment C)

c) Overview of NFPA Process.

5. Review of Public Comments. (Attachement D)

6. Task Group Reports.

a) Task Group on Reorganization: (CI 25) Thomas Scherpa, Walter Frank, Robert Taylor, and John

Cholin.

b) Task Group on Conductivity and Static: (CI 31) Philip Parsons, Walter Franks, Jim Koch, Bill

Stevenson, Sam Rodgers, and Mark Holcomb.

c) Task Group on FIBCs: (FR 32) Vahid Ebadat and Sam Rodgers.

d) Task Group on Additive Manufacturing: (FR 17 and CI 28) Jack Osborn (chair), John Cholin, Jason

Reason, and Sam Rodgers.

7. Review of Committee Input. (Attachment E)

1 of 68

8. New Business.

9. Next Meeting.

10. Adjourn.

2 of 68

Address List No PhoneHandling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, and Gases CMD-HAPCombustible Dusts

Laura E. Moreno04/27/2018

CMD-HAPMark L. RunyonChairMarsh Risk Consulting111 SW Columbia, Suite 500Portland, OR 97201

I 1/10/2008CMD-HAP

Brice ChastainPrincipalGeorgia-Pacific LLC889 West Seven Mile RoadPamplico, SC 29583Alternate: Eric Jandrain

U 10/28/2008

CMD-HAPJohn M. CholinPrincipalJ. M. Cholin Consultants Inc.101 Roosevelt DriveOakland, NJ 07436

SE 1/1/1992CMD-HAP

Ashok Ghose DastidarPrincipalFauske & Associates, LLC16W070 83rd StreetBurr Ridge, IL 60527-5802

SE 10/28/2014

CMD-HAPBurke DesautelsPrincipalIEP Technologies/Hoerbiger417-1 South StreetMarlborough, MA 01752Alternate: Randal R. Davis

M 03/07/2013CMD-HAP

Tony DiLucidoPrincipalZurich Risk Engineering Services720 Ash AvenueCollingdale, PA 19023Alternate: Robert D. Shafto

I 8/5/2009

CMD-HAPVahid EbadatPrincipalDEKRA Insight/Chilworth Technology Inc.113 Campus DrivePrinceton, NJ 08540

SE 7/1/1996CMD-HAP

Larry D. FloydPrincipalBASF1379 Ciba RoadMcIntosh, AL 36553-5436

U 8/5/2009

CMD-HAPWalter L. FrankPrincipalFrank Risk Solutions, Inc.1110 Shallcross AvenueWilmington, DE 19806

SE 7/1/1994CMD-HAP

Stephen T. GreesonPrincipalHSB Professional Loss Control11068 First LightMontgomery, TX 77356

I 8/5/2009

CMD-HAPPaul F. HartPrincipalAmerican International Group, Inc. (AIG)18257 Martin AvenueHomewood, IL 60430-2107

I 1/17/1997CMD-HAP

Mark L. HolcombPrincipalKimberly-Clark Corporation2001 Marathon AvenueNeenah, WI 54956

U 7/23/2008

CMD-HAPJerry J. JennettPrincipalGeorgia Gulf Sulfur Corporation3318 Bellemeade DriveValdosta, GA 31605Alternate: Randall Dunlap

U 1/15/1999CMD-HAP

James F. KochPrincipalThe Dow Chemical Company1400 BuildingMidland, MI 48667American Chemistry CouncilAlternate: Glenn W. Baldwin

U 10/28/2008

13 of 68



CMD-HAPBruce McLellandPrincipalFike Corporation704 SW 10th StreetBlue Springs, MO 64015-4263Alternate: Jérôme R. Taveau

M 3/2/2010CMD-HAP

Jack E. OsbornPrincipalAirdusco, Inc.4739 Mendenhall Road SouthMemphis, TN 38141-8202

M 1/10/2008

CMD-HAPPhilip J. ParsonsPrincipalBaker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc.3330 Oakwell CourtSan Antonio, TX 78218Alternate: David C. Kirby

SE 8/9/2011CMD-HAP

Richard PehrsonPrincipalPehrson Fire PC7455 France Avenue South, Suite 271Edina, MN 55435International Fire Marshals Association

E 3/1/2011

CMD-HAPJason P. ReasonPrincipalLewellyn Technology2518 Thorium Drive, Apt 3Greenwood, IN 46143

SE 3/2/2010CMD-HAP

Ali RezaPrincipalExponent, Inc.5401 McConnell AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90066-7027

SE 03/05/2012

CMD-HAPJames L. RobertsPrincipalFluor Enterprises, Inc.100 Fluor Daniel DriveGreenville, SC 29607-2762

SE 1/1/1989CMD-HAP

Samuel A. RodgersPrincipalHoneywell, Inc.15801 Woods Edge RoadColonial Heights, VA 23834-6059

U 7/20/2000

CMD-HAPAndrew RyersonPrincipalFM Global1151 Boston-Providence TurnpikeNorwood, MA 02062FM Global

I 11/30/2016CMD-HAP

Thomas C. ScherpaPrincipalDuPont71 Valley RoadSullivan, NH 03445Alternate: Eric R. Winter

U 3/21/2006

CMD-HAPBill StevensonPrincipalCV Technology, Inc.15852 Mercantile CourtJupiter, FL 33478Alternate: Jason Krbec

M 1/15/1999CMD-HAP

Jeffery W. SuttonPrincipalTUV SUD America Inc./Global Risk Consultants Corporation350 Highway 7, Suite 220Excelsior, MN 55331-3170

SE 3/4/2008

CMD-HAPRobert D. TaylorPrincipalPRB Coal Users Group4377 Sandra Kay LaneNewburgh, IN 47630-8596

U 8/9/2011CMD-HAP

Tony L. ThomasPrincipalFlamex, Inc.4365 Federal DriveGreensboro, NC 27313

M 10/27/2009

24 of 68

Address List No PhoneHandling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, and Gases CMD-HAP


CMD-HAPErdem A. UralPrincipalLoss Prevention Science & Technologies, Inc.2 Canton Street, Suite A2Stoughton, MA 02072

SE 7/23/2008CMD-HAP

Harold H. Weber, Jr.PrincipalThe Sulphur Institute1020 19th Street, NW, Suite 520Washington, DC 20036

VL to Document: 655

U 1/1/1986

CMD-HAPGlenn W. BaldwinAlternateThe Dow Chemical CompanyPO Box 8361South Charleston, WV 25303American Chemistry CouncilPrincipal: James F. Koch

U 03/07/2013CMD-HAP

Randal R. DavisAlternateIEP Technologies/HOERBIGER417-1 South StreetMarlborough, MA 01752-3149Principal: Burke Desautels

M 10/29/2012

CMD-HAPRandall DunlapAlternateGeorgia Gulf Sulfur Corporation1300 Spring Creek RoadBainbridge, GA 39817Principal: Jerry J. Jennett

U 3/2/2010CMD-HAP

Eric JandrainAlternateGeorgia-Pacific LLC1919 South Broadway StreetGreen Bay, WI 54304-4905Principal: Brice Chastain

U 12/08/2015

CMD-HAPDavid C. KirbyAlternateBaker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc.1560 Clearview HeightsCharleston, WV 25312-5948Principal: Philip J. Parsons

SE 1/1/1983CMD-HAP

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

M 3/1/2011

CMD-HAPRobert D. ShaftoAlternateZurich Insurance1093 Tall Pines TrailHighland, MI 48356Principal: Tony DiLucido

I 8/5/2009CMD-HAP

Jérôme R. TaveauAlternateFike Corporation704 SW 10th StreetBlue Springs, MO 64015-4263Principal: Bruce McLelland

M 03/07/2013

CMD-HAPEric R. WinterAlternateThe DuPont Company, Inc.DuPont Chambers Works Explosion Hazards Lab67 Canal Road, Bldg. 1282PO Box 9000Deepwater, NJ 08023Principal: Thomas C. Scherpa

U 08/17/2015CMD-HAP

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

E 3/4/2009

CMD-HAPLaura E. MorenoStaff LiaisonNational Fire Protection AssociationOne Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

9/13/2017

35 of 68



46 of 68

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON HANDLING AND CONVEYING OF DUSTS, VAPORS, AND GASES

First Draft Meeting Minutes August 1-2 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM CT August 3 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM CT

Hilton Garden Inn Minneapolis Downtown Minneapolis, MN

Attendees:

Committee Members:

Mark Runyon, Chair Marsh USA Inc.

Brice Chastain Georgia-Pacific LLC

John Cholin J.M. Cholin Consultants Inc.

Tony DiLucido* Zurich Risk Engineering Services

Vahid Ebadat* DEKRA Insight/Chilworth Technology Inc.

Larry Floyd* BASF

Walter Frank* Frank Risk Solutions, Inc.

Stephen Greeson HSB Professional Loss Control

Mark Holcomb* Kimberly-Clark Corporation

James Koch American Chemistry Council

Bruce McLelland Fike Corporation

Jack Osborn Airdusco, Inc.

Philip Parsons Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants

Richard Pehrson International Fire Marshals Association

Ali Reza Exponent, Inc.

Samuel Rodgers* Honeywell, Inc.

Andrew Ryerson FM Global

Bill Stevenson CV Technology, Inc.

Jeffery Sutton TUV SUD America Inc./Global Risk

Robert Taylor PRB Coal Users’ Group

Tony Thomas Flamex, Inc.

Glenn Baldwin* American Chemistry Council

Randal Davis* IEP Technologies/HOERBIGER

Randall Dunlap Georgia Gulf Sulfur Corporation

Eric Jandrain Georgia-Pacific LLC

David Kirby* Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants

7 of 68

Jason Krbec CV Technology, Inc.

Eric Winter The DuPont Company, Inc.

Laura Moreno, Staff Liaison National Fire Protection Association

Guests:

Johannes Lotterman REMBE

Gerd Mayer REMBE

Bernardo Sanson CV Technology, Inc.

*Participated by Teleconference

1. Call to Order. Mark Runyon, Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:05 AM CDT on August 1, and

welcomed the attendees to the meeting. Robert Taylor shared a video of a recent grain silo incident

and the committee was encouraged to remember the purpose of the standard and the meeting.

2. Introductions. Attendees introduced themselves and identified their affiliation

3. Approval of Meeting Minutes. The minutes from the meeting held on July 21-23, 2015 were

approved without revision.

4. Staff updates. Laura Moreno provided an overview of the Annual 2019 revision cycle schedule

and the NFPA process.

5. Review of Public Inputs: NFPA 654. The committee reviewed each Public Input and created

First Revisions and Committee Inputs as necessary. The following task group was created for further

work:

a) Task Group on Conductivity and Static. A task group has been formed which will prepare

recommendations to incorporate extracted conductivity and static requirements from NFPA

652 with the existing text in NFPA 654. See Committee Input 31. Task group members are

Philip Parsons, Walter Franks, Jim Koch, Bill Stevenson, Sam Rodgers, and Mark Holcomb.

6. Task Group Reports.

a) Task Group on Reorganization. The task group presented a file showing preliminary moves

based on the 2016 edition of NFPA 652. The task group will continue to work on this effort to

align with the chapters and sections in NFPA 652 once the Second Draft of NFPA 652 2019 is

available, as some of the sections in NFPA 652 have significantly changed. The task group will

also clearly identify the requirements that are retroactive by creating headings titled

8 of 68

"Retroactivity". See Committee Input 25. The task group members were Walter Frank and

Thomas Scherpa, now with the addition of Robert Taylor and John Cholin.

7. Additional Issues for Consideration.

a) Presentation on Proposed TIA No.1259 and Public Input 10. Gerd Mayer and Johannes

Lottermann, REMBE Inc., presented on the Proposed TIA No.1259, which previously failed

ballot on both technical merit and emergency nature. See attachment for presentation. After

discussion, the committee created a First Revision to delete section 7.13.1.6.4 (see First

Revision 6). All revisions are subject to formal letter ballot before they are incorporated into

the First Draft.

b) NFPA 652 Definition Extracts. The Technical Committee agreed with the Correlating

Committee’s effort to have definitions common to NFPA 652 and the commodity-specific

documents reside in NFPA 652 as the primary source, and added extract tags in NFPA 654 to

reflect that.

8. New Business.

a) Task Group on FIBCs. A task group was created to review the revised FIBC requirements,

particularly the annex regarding liners. See First Revision 32. Task Group members are Vahid

Ebadat and Sam Rodgers.

b) Task Group on Additive Manufacturing. A task group was formed to review the new

Additive Manufacturing chapter in NFPA 484 to determine what material should be included in

NFPA 654. See First Revision 17 and Committee Input 28. Task group members are Jack

Osborn (chair), John Cholin, Jason Reason, and Sam Rodgers.

9. Next Meeting. The Second Draft meeting will be held on May 15-16, 2018, in either Atlanta orDenver. A meeting notice will be distributed once the meeting location has been confirmed.

10. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 1:11 PM CDT on August 2.

9 of 68

9/26/2017

1

RETURN AIR ISOLATION &

NFPA 654-2017Dr.-Ing. Gerd Mayer

REMBE Inc., President

Dr.-Ing. Johannes LottermannREMBE GmbH, Director Explosion Safety

OVERVIEW

• Current Requirement towards AMS for Return Air Isolation

• Safety Analysis

• ATEX Certification

• Return Air Isolation Requirements

• Dust Overloading

• Safety Zone

10 of 68

9/26/2017

2

Current Requirements - AMS acc. NFPA 654-2017

?

Flame-arresting devices for return air isolation

Dirty Side

Dust discharge

Clean Side

Rotary valve

Flame ArrestingDevice (withoutbursting disc)

Flap Valve acc. NFPA 69

11 of 68

9/26/2017

3

Appreciation of concerns by NFPA Committee I

1. Appears to be an off‐label use ( not designed for explosion isolation) of device;appears to have technical merit but requires further study to fully understand designcriteria, installation criteria, design parameters, pressure resistance others. Toolimited data under specific conditions: should encourage them to conduct furtherstudies on the application. Take up application by task force during next revisioncycle.

2. Requires additional testing and discussion during next TC meeting.3. Submission does not address all issues to be considered: what about info to scale

applications for larger ducts and larger dust collectors; different dust types; effects ofdust aging or phase transition during deflagration. Not sufficient data presented.

4. Test not adequate, does not demonstrate ability to provide isolation after prolongedexposure to material build up in the mesh membrane which can lead to blockage. (HSL/2006/105—flameless vent in clean air exhaust can lead to material buildup incertain conditions.) Not adequate to show it is for this application without ductworkon the end of device.

Appreciation of concerns by NFPA Committee II

1. Not an emergency; there are other protection methods available in the marketplace.2. Hazard or fire products (toxic gases) returning to the workspace are not addressed.3. Insufficient information provided to demonstrate the AMS device satisfies the

intended purpose for large installations over time.4. Risk to public resulting from the inclusion of the section is not demonstrated, so not

an emergency.5. Not immediately obvious that this device offers protections equivalent to some other

methods used to meet requirements of 7.13.1.6.3.6. Not clear that there are not unintended consequences.7. Not an emergency: prior installations are grandfathered, can use performance based

design option or can justify via risk assessment conducted under 7.1.38. No definitive statement that no particulate exited the devices.9. Did the test measure the temperature increase at the exhaust or the radiative

energy? Both needed.10. Using dry corn starch to block the vent does not account for the effects of moisture,

which over time could result in a hard crusty type of layer blocking with many typesof dust.

12 of 68

9/26/2017

4

Appreciation of concerns by NFPA Committee III

1. Problem with accumulation over time; contamination of the filter element will affectthe pickup capability of the dust collection system, creating the potential forupstream dusts to become fugitive emissions in other areas of the facility.

2. Secondary hazard associated with blowing unburned dust out of the flameless vent.Wouldn’t the dust shown in the image still present a secondary hazard if it found anignition source? At minimum I think we would want class II div II area classification inthe vicinity of the flameless vent. Additional language should be considered to beadded in the appendix to identify the hazards and make the user aware of ignitioncontrol in the vent vicinity.

3. Did not provide any information re: limitations of this method: vessel limits, ductlength, upper limit for Pred, etc.

4. When dust collects in the mesh, the dust collection system will lose suction andpossibly cause dust to accumulate in the workspace. There is no informationprovided about pressure loss through the device that would be used for design ofdust collection system and blower.

Appreciation of concerns by NFPA Committee IV

1. Arguments presented to prohibit the device are valid, but controls to protect againstconditions that lead to unsafe situation can be specified in standard. Specificallymonitor differential pressure drop on device; limit duct length; require an inspectiondoor; routine inspections. All retroactively. The fact that these devices are in the fieldwithout controls specified make it an emergency nature.

13 of 68

9/26/2017

5

Safety Analysis

• Successfully tested the flameless vents effectiveness when isolating an explosion

• Used elevated conditions to test worst case scenario (i.e. on inlet and not actualclean air side)

Safety Analysis

• Filled the flameless vent with 3.3 kg of cornstarch

• Still successfully isolated the explosion with no flames exiting the flameless vent

14 of 68

9/26/2017

6

ATEX Certified

• Flameless vents are originally ATEX Certified to safely vent an explosion indoors

• The only difference in this and the return air isolation option is the explosion panel butfunction is identical

• The critical component is thus the flame‐arresting and particulate retention component

• Therefore, the use of a flameless vent as a return air isolation device is within the limitsof the ATEX certificate

Return Air Isolation Requirements

• All ATEX certified requirements including KSt, Pmax, Pred, MIE, dust types, safety zone etc.

• Size and Quantity also determined by airflow to keep pressure drop

9/26/2017

7

Rembe always informed the clients about theapplication limits

Dust Overloading

• Tested functionality with exaggerated dust loading that would not occur in reality

• Explosion propagation contained inside even with blockage

• Even still, an alarm will sound before any such dust accumulation would occur.

16 of 68

9/26/2017

8

Safety Zone

• Safety Zone ensures workers are safe during any explosion or upset condition

• Safety Zone must be clear of any flammable materials and ignition sources aswith all flameless vents

1. Operational Protection Scheme

Conclusion

• Tested in various scenarios to ensure the device works in allexaggerated setups

• The device is within the ATEX certification as function is identical

• Several additional requirements are set in place for return air isolationapplications

• The overloaded dust application does not hinder the effectiveness ofthe device

• A Safety Zone ensures all workers are safe and secure during any event

17 of 68

9/26/2017

9

Conclusion

• Flame‐Arresting Technology is the only one “mentioned”• Negative but also positive examples can be found• We agree, that application limits may exist unless proven

• Test on REMBE devices have proven that the flameless vents can metthe life safety objectives of NFPA 654:

Thus we ask the committee to either delete or change 7.13.1.6.4:

7.13.1.6.4 A flame‐arresting and particulate‐retention devicethat is designed for use on explosion vent discharge shall notbe used as an explosion isolation device in a return air line unless tests have been carried out to proof the applicability within its tested range

Thank you verymuch for your attention

18 of 68

Annual 2019 Revision Cycle

Process Stage Process Step Dates for TCDates for TC

with CC

Public InputStage (First Draft)

Public Input Closing Date* 6/28/2017 6/28/2017

Final Date for TC First Draft Meeting 12/06/2017 9/06/2017

Posting of First Draft and TC Ballot 1/24/2018 10/18/2017

Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot 2/14/2018 11/08/2017

Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot - recirc 2/21/2018 11/15/2017Posting of First Draft for CC Meeting 11/22/2017

Final date for CC First Draft Meeting 1/03/2018

Posting of First Draft and CC Ballot 1/24/2018

Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot 2/14/2018

Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot - recirc 2/21/2018Post First Draft Report for Public Comment 2/28/2018 2/28/2018

Comment Stage(Second Draft)

Public Comment Closing Date* 5/09/2018 5/09/2018

Notice Published on Consent Standards (Standards that received no Comments)Note: Date varies and determined via TC ballot.

Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards (Standards that received no Comments)

Final date for TC Second Draft Meeting 11/07/2018 8/01/2018

Posting of Second Draft and TC Ballot 12/19/2018 9/12/2018

Final date for Receipt of TC Second Draft ballot 1/09/2019 10/03/2018

Final date for receipt of TC Second Draft ballot - recirc 1/16/2019 10/10/2018Posting of Second Draft for CC Meeting 10/17/2018

Final date for CC Second Draft Meeting 11/28/2018

Posting of Second Draft for CC Ballot 12/19/2018

Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot 1/09/2019

Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot - recirc 1/16/2019Post Second Draft Report for NITMAM Review 1/23/2019 1/23/2019

Tech SessionPreparation (&

Issuance)

Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 2/20/2019 2/20/2019Posting of Certified Amending Motions (CAMs) and Consent Standards 4/03/2019 4/03/2019Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards 4/18/2019 4/18/2019

SC Issuance Date for Consent Standards 4/28/2019 4/28/2019

Tech Session Association Meeting for Standards with CAMs 6/20/2019 6/20/2019

Appeals andIssuance

Appeal Closing Date for Standards with CAMs 7/10/2019 7/10/2019

SC Issuance Date for Standards with CAMs 8/07/2019 8/07/2019

TC = Technical Committee or PanelCC = Correlating Committee

As of 4/12/2017

1 of 1 4/27/2018, 9:30 AM

19 of 68

Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 654-2018 [ Global Input ]

See statement from Correlating Committee

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description ApprovedCCN_7.pdf Correlating Note No. 7

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

The NFPA 654 reorganization effort should consider the most recent changes to NFPA 652, which swapped Chapters 8 and 9, Management Systems and Hazard Management.

Related Item• CN No. 7

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: CC on CMD-AACOrganization: CC on CMD-AACStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Fri Apr 27 13:26:21 EDT 2018

National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

1 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

20 of 68

Correlating Committee Note No. 7-NFPA 654-2017 [ Global Input ]


Submitter Full Name: Laura MorenoOrganization: National Fire Protection AssocStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Tue Dec 12 14:12:08 EST 2017

Committee Statement and Meeting Notes

CommitteeStatement:

The NFPA 654 reorganization effort should consider the most recent changes to NFPA 652, whichswapped Chapters 8 and 9, Management Systems and Hazard Management.

Ballot Results

This item has passed ballot

15 Eligible Voters1 Not Returned

14 Affirmative All0 Affirmative with Comments0 Negative with Comments0 Abstention

Not Returned

Osborn, Jack E.

Affirmative All

Aiken, Chris

Bujewski, Matthew J.

Cholin, John M.

Creswell, Gregory F.

Davis, Scott G.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Kreitman, Kevin

LeBlanc, John A.

Mattos, Jr., Arthur P.

McAlister, Steve

Roberts, Jeffrey R.

National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/...

1 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:55 AM

21 of 68

Stevenson, Bill

Taveau, Jérôme R.


2 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:55 AM

22 of 68

Public Comment No. 10-NFPA 654-2018 [ 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

ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C, 2016a.

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

ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air,

2003

2003 , reapproved 2013.

ASTM E2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Tube Furnace with a Cone-shapedAirflow Stabilizer, at 750°C, 2016.


ASTM E136 and ASTM E2652 are added because of recommended action by a separate PC.

Related Public Comments for This Document

Related Comment RelationshipPublic Comment No. 9-NFPA 654-2018 [New Section after 4.7]Public Comment No. 11-NFPA 654-2018 [Section No. 3.3.31]

Related Item• pi 22


Submitter Full Name: Marcelo HirschlerOrganization: GBH InternationalStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Thu May 03 01:40:25 EDT 2018


2 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

23 of 68


3.3.30 Nano-Powder.

Particles where the main dimension is 0.5 μm (500 nm) or less.




The NFPA 654 Committee should consider the following points:

1) Conventional spelling of the term is not to hyphenate.

2) Should the document be addressing nanoparticles vs nanopowder? Which is the more general usage inindustry?

3) The definition is ambiguous. Does the criterion apply to the largest or smallest dimension? Should it apply to asingle dimension, or two?

4) Definitions should not establish criteria. This should be in an annex.

5) The definition does not communicate the rationale for singling out nanoparticles. What causes unique concernabout nanoparticles? This should at least be addressed in annex material - maybe by pointing to A.7.18.1 or NFPA484.

The Correlating Committee will consider, as this and other standards begin to develop definitions for nanopowders or nanoparticles, if there is a need for a standardized definition in NFPA 652. The Correlating Committee will also consider submitting a Research Fund request to look at the size threshold, at what point the hazard changes, and what safeguards should be put in place





3 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

24 of 68

Correlating Committee Note No. 1-NFPA 654-2017 [ Section No. 3.3.30 ]




CommitteeStatement:

The NFPA 654 Committee should consider the following points:

1) Conventional spelling of the term is not to hyphenate.

2) Should the document be addressing nanoparticles vs nanopowder? Which is the more general usagein industry?

3) The definition is ambiguous. Does the criterion apply to the largest or smallest dimension? Should itapply to a single dimension, or two?

4) Definitions should not establish criteria. This should be in an annex.

5) The definition does not communicate the rationale for singling out nanoparticles. What causes uniqueconcern about nanoparticles? This should at least be addressed in annex material - maybe by pointingto A.7.18.1 or NFPA 484.

The Correlating Committee will consider, as this and other standards begin to develop definitions fornanopowders or nanoparticles, if there is a need for a standardized definition in NFPA 652. TheCorrelating Committee will also consider submitting a Research Fund request to look at the sizethreshold, at what point the hazard changes, and what safeguards should be put in place.

Ballot Results




Not Returned

Osborn, Jack E.

Affirmative All


1 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:56 AM

25 of 68

Aiken, Chris


Cholin, John M.


Davis, Scott G.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Kreitman, Kevin

LeBlanc, John A.


McAlister, Steve

Roberts, Jeffrey R.

Stevenson, Bill

Taveau, Jérôme R.


2 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:56 AM

26 of 68


3.3.31* Noncombustible Material.

A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite, supportcombustion, burn, or release flammable vapors when subjected to fire or heat. (see section 4.8)


This sends the user to a new section that contains the general NFPA requirements for noncombustible materials, as proposed in another public comment.


Related Comment RelationshipPublic Comment No. 10-NFPA 654-2018 [Section No. 2.3.3]Public Comment No. 9-NFPA 654-2018 [New Section after 4.7]

Related Item• pi20




4 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

27 of 68


3.3.35 Pyrophoric Material.

A chemical with an autoignition temperature in air at or below 130°F (54.4°C). [400, 2019]




The TC should consider extracting this definition from NFPA 484 instead (which is also done by NFPA 652):

Pyrophoric Material. A material that ignites upon exposure to air at or below 54.4°C (130°F).





5 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

28 of 68

Correlating Committee Note No. 2-NFPA 654-2017 [ Section No. 3.3.35 ]




CommitteeStatement:

The TC should consider extracting this definition from NFPA 484 instead (which is also done byNFPA 652):

Pyrophoric Material. A material that ignites upon exposure to air at or below 54.4°C (130°F).

Ballot Results




Not Returned

Osborn, Jack E.

Affirmative All

Aiken, Chris


Cholin, John M.


Davis, Scott G.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Kreitman, Kevin

LeBlanc, John A.


McAlister, Steve


1 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:56 AM

29 of 68

Roberts, Jeffrey R.

Stevenson, Bill

Taveau, Jérôme R.


2 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:56 AM

30 of 68

Public Comment No. 9-NFPA 654-2018 [ New Section after 4.7 ]

4.8 Noncombustible Material.

4.8.1 A material that complies with any of the following shall be considered a noncombustiblematerial:

(1) A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will notignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors when subjected to fire or heat

(2) A material that is reported as passing ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior ofMaterials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C

(3) A material that is reported as complying with the pass/fail criteria of ASTM E136 when tested inaccordance with the test method and procedure in ASTM E2652, Standard Test Method forBehavior of Materials in a Tube Furnace with a Cone-shaped Airflow Stabilizer, at 750 Degrees C


In view of the technical committee's comment that the term limited combustible material is not used in the document, that portion has been deleted from the original public input. The public comment now references simply the general NFPA requirements for noncombustible materials, which are the same for dusts (which are solid and are tested in accordance with ASTM E136 or ASTM E2652 when necessary to assess their combustibility) as for building materials. The ASTM non combustibility tests are not uniquely suited for building materials but can be used for any solid materials (except for coated and laminated materials) and are generally used throughout the US to assess combustibility (or the lack of it).


Related Comment RelationshipPublic Comment No. 10-NFPA 654-2018 [Section No. 2.3.3]Public Comment No. 11-NFPA 654-2018 [Section No. 3.3.31]

Related Item• pi19




6 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

31 of 68

Public Comment No. 12-NFPA 654-2018 [ New Section after 7.3.2.7.5 ]

7.3.2.7.5Filter media and machine surfaces in contact with collected combus ble material must be bonded and grounded withmax resistance to ground 1 x 10^6 Ohm.


filter media in a dry-type vacuum can generate a static charge which can be dangerous in combustible metal dust collection. Antistatic media bonded and grounded should be required to allow higher level of safety.

Related Item• None


Submitter Full Name: Stephen WatkinsOrganization: NilfiskStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Wed May 09 15:41:37 EDT 2018


7 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

32 of 68

Public Comment No. 13-NFPA 654-2018 [ Section No. 7.4 ]

7.4 Specific Requirements for Systems that Convey Metal Particulates.

7.4.1 General.

This section shall apply to facilities that operate pneumatic conveying, dust collection, and centralizedvacuum cleaning systems for metal particulates.

7.4.2

Systems handling metal particulates shall be designed in accordance with NFPA 484 in addition to therequirements of this section.

7.4.3 * Water Reactivity.

7.4.3.1

Unless otherwise determined, metal particulates shall be deemed water-reactive, and water-basedextinguishing agents shall not be used.

7.4.3.2

Specially engineered high-density water spray systems approved by the AHJ shall be permitted to be used.

7.4.3.3

The requirement of 7.4.3.1 shall not apply to the collection of iron dusts from shot blasting.

7.4.4

Systems that convey alloys that exhibit fire or explosion characteristics similar to those of the base metalshall be provided with the same protection as systems that convey the base metal.

7.4.5 Iron, Nickel, Copper, and Other Transition Metal Particulates.

Transition metal combustible particulates shall be classified as water-compatible, water-incompatible, orwater-reactive based on the available chemical and physical data and in conjunction with the AHJ.


Would this not be best moved to NFPA 484? I don't generally see NFPA 654 being cited in combustible metal dust applications with 652 and 484 taking the driver's seat, and these requirements may go ignored or missed in its current location.





8 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

33 of 68

Public Comment No. 5-NFPA 654-2018 [ Section No. 7.10.9.1 ]

7.10.9.1

Elevators shall have monitors at head and tail pulleys that indicate high bearing temperature and beltalignment.




This section has been revised in NFPA 652 to include pulley alignment. See SCR 2 on section 9.3.14.6.1 of NFPA 652 and consider correlating this section.





9 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

34 of 68

Correlating Committee Note No. 3-NFPA 654-2017 [ Section No. 7.10.9.1 ]




CommitteeStatement:

This section has been revised in NFPA 652 to include pulley alignment. See SCR 2 on section9.3.14.6.1 of NFPA 652 and consider correlating this section.

Ballot Results




Not Returned

Osborn, Jack E.

Affirmative All

Aiken, Chris


Cholin, John M.


Davis, Scott G.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Kreitman, Kevin

LeBlanc, John A.


McAlister, Steve

Roberts, Jeffrey R.


1 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:55 AM

35 of 68

Stevenson, Bill

Taveau, Jérôme R.


2 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:55 AM

36 of 68

Public Comment No. 7-NFPA 654-2018 [ Section No. 7.13.1.6.3 ]

7.13.1.6.3*

Recycling of AMS exhaust to buildings or rooms shall be permitted when all of the following requirementsare met:

(1) Combustible or flammable gases or vapors are not present either in the intake or the recycled air inconcentrations above applicable industrial hygiene exposure limits or 1 percent of the LFL, whicheveris lower.

(2)

(3)

(4) Deflagration isolation is incorporated to prevent transmission of flame and pressure effects from adeflagration in an AMS back to the facility in accordance with 7.1.6, unless a DHA indicates that thoseeffects do not pose a threat to the facility or the occupants.

(5) Provisions are incorporated to prevent transmission of smoke and flame from a fire in an AMS back tothe facility unless a DHA indicates that those effects do not pose a threat to the facility or theoccupants.

(6) The system includes a method for detecting AMS malfunctions that would reduce collection efficiencyand allow increases in the amount of combustible particulate solids returned to the building.

(7) The building or room to which the recycled air is returned meets the fugitive dust control andhousekeeping requirements of this standard (Chapter 8).

(8) Recycled-air ducts are inspected and cleaned at least annually.


File Name Description ApprovedCCN_4.pdf 654 CN No. 4


The Technical Committee should reconsider the removal of this section, as now there is no guidance or reference to the requirements that are stated in the Committee Statement.



Submitter Full Name: CC on CMD-AACOrganization: NFPAStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Fri Apr 27 14:39:26 EDT 2018

* Combustible particulate solids are not present in the recycled air in concentrations above applicableindustrial hygiene exposure limits or 1 percent of the MEC, whichever is lower.

* The oxygen concentration of the recycled air stream is between 19.5 percent and 23.5 percent byvolume.


10 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

37 of 68

Correlating Committee Note No. 4-NFPA 654-2017 [ Section No. 7.13.1.6.4 ]




CommitteeStatement:

The Technical Committee should reconsider the removal of this section, as now there is noguidance or reference to the requirements that are stated in the Committee Statement.

Ballot Results




Not Returned

Osborn, Jack E.

Affirmative All


Cholin, John M.


Davis, Scott G.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Kreitman, Kevin

LeBlanc, John A.


McAlister, Steve

Roberts, Jeffrey R.

Stevenson, Bill


1 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:57 AM

38 of 68

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Negative with Comment

Aiken, Chris

654 committee resolution (FR-6-NFPA 654-2017) identified the NFPA 69 standard as the proper place to address theallowance of flame-arresting and particulate retention devices for isolation. I believe the 654 committee resolution wasappropriate.


2 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:57 AM

39 of 68


8.2.3.7*

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

(1) Materials of construction shall comply with 7.13.2 and 9.3.2.

(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) Filter media and machine surfaces in contact with collected combus ble material must be bonded andgrounded with max resistance to ground 1 x 10^6 Ohm


filter media in a dry-type vacuum can generate a static charge which can be dangerous in combustible metal dust collection. Antistatic media bonded and grounded should be required to allow higher level of safety.




* When liquids or wet material are picked up by the vacuum cleaner, paper filter elements shall not beused.


11 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

40 of 68


9.3.4* Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers (FIBCs).

FIBCs shall be permitted to be used for the handling and storage of combustible particulate solids inaccordance with the requirements in 9.3.4.1 through 9.3.4.7. [652:8.4.7.4]

9.3.4.1*

Electrostatic ignition hazards associated with the particulate and objects surrounding or inside the FIBCshall be included in the DHA required by Section 4.2. [652:8.4.7.4.1]

9.3.4.2*

Type A FIBCs shall be limited to use with noncombustible particulate solids or combustible particulatesolids having an MIE greater than 1000 mJ. [652:8.4.7.4.2]

9.3.4.2.1

Type A FIBCs shall not be used in locations where flammable vapors are present. [652:8.4.7.4.2.1]

9.3.4.2.2*

Type A FIBCs shall not be used with conductive dusts. [652:8.4.7.4.2.2]

9.3.4.3*

Type B FIBCs shall be permitted to be used where combustible dusts having an MIE greater than 3 mJare present. [652:8.4.7.4.3]

9.3.4.3.1

Type B FIBCs shall not be used in locations where flammable vapors are present. [652:8.4.7.4.3.1]

9.3.4.3.2

Type B FIBCs shall not be used for conductive dusts.(See A.9.3.4.2.2.) [652:8.4.7.4.3.2]

9.3.4.4*

Type C FIBCs shall be permitted to be used with combustible particulate solids and in locations whereClass I Division Group C/D or Zone Group IIA/IIB flammable vapors or gases, as defined by NFPA 70, arepresent. [652:8.4.7.4.4]

9.3.4.4.1

Conductive FIBC elements shall terminate in a grounding tab, and resistance from these elements to thetab shall be less than or equal to 107 ohms. [652:8.4.7.4.4.1]

9.3.4.4.2

Type C FIBCs shall be grounded during filling and emptying operations with a resistance to ground of lessthan 25 ohms. [652:8.4.7.4.4.2]

9.3.4.4.3

Type C FIBCs shall be permitted to be used for conductive dusts where a means for grounding theconductive dusts is present. [652:8.4.7.4.4.3]

9.3.4.5*

Type D FIBCs shall be permitted to be used with combustible particulate solids and in locations whereClass I Division Group C/D or Zone Group IIA/IIB flammable vapors or gases, as defined by NFPA 70,having an MIE greater than 0.14 mJ are present. [652:8.4.7.4.5]

9.3.4.5.1*

Type D FIBCs shall not be permitted to be used for conductive particulate solids. [652:8.4.7.4.5.1]

9.3.4.6*


12 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

41 of 68

Type B, Type C, and Type D FIBCs shall be tested and verified as safe for their intended use by arecognized testing organization in accordance with the requirements and test procedures specified in IEC61340-4-4, Electrostatics — Part 4-4: Standard Test Methods for Specific Applications — ElectrostaticClassification of Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers (FIBC), before being used in hazardousenvironments. [652:8.4.7.4.6]

9.3.4.6.1

Intended use shall include both the product being handled and the environment in which the FIBC will beused. [652:8.4.7.4.6.1]

9.3.4.6.2

Materials used to construct inner baffles, other than mesh or net baffles, shall meet the requirements forthe bag type in which they are to be used. [652:8.4.7.4.6.2]

9.3.4.6.3*

Inner liners shall be suitable to maintain the electrostatic characteristics of the bag types in which they areused.

9.3.4.6.4

Documentation of test results shall be made available to the AHJ. [652:8.4.7.4.6.3]

9.3.4.6.5

FIBCs that have not been tested and verified for type in accordance with IEC 61340-4-4, Electrostatics —Part 4 4: Standard Test Methods for Specific Applications — Electrostatic Classification of FlexibleIntermediate Bulk Containers (FIBC), shall not be used for combustible dusts or in flammable vaporatmospheres. [652:8.4.7.4.6.4]

9.3.4.7*

Deviations from the requirements in 9.3.4.1 through 9.3.4.6 for safe use of FIBCs shall be permitted basedon a documented risk assessment acceptable to the AHJ. [652:8.4.7.4.7]


File Name Description ApprovedCCN_5.pdf CN No. 5


The Technical Committee needs to review the electrical classification language in 9.3.4.4 and 9.3.4.5 as mentioned in the First Draft ballot comment (specify division and zone).

Also, there is an incorrect reference to Type C FIBCs in the annex section for Type D FIBCs (A.9.3.4.5) which has been fixed in NFPA 652.



Submitter Full Name: CC on CMD-AACOrganization: NFPA.Street Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Fri Apr 27 14:44:40 EDT 2018


13 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

42 of 68

Correlating Committee Note No. 5-NFPA 654-2017 [ Sections 9.3.4, 9.3.5 ]




CommitteeStatement:

The Technical Committee needs to review the electrical classification language in 9.3.4.4 and9.3.4.5 as mentioned in the First Draft ballot comment (specify division and zone).

Also, there is an incorrect reference to Type C FIBCs in the annex section for Type D FIBCs(A.9.3.4.5) which has been fixed in NFPA 652.

Ballot Results




Not Returned

Osborn, Jack E.

Affirmative All

Aiken, Chris


Cholin, John M.


Davis, Scott G.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Kreitman, Kevin

LeBlanc, John A.



1 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:58 AM

43 of 68

McAlister, Steve

Roberts, Jeffrey R.

Stevenson, Bill

Taveau, Jérôme R.


2 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:58 AM

44 of 68


9.3.4.6*

Type B, Type C, and Type D FIBCs shall be tested and verified as safe for their intended use by arecognized testing organization in accordance with the requirements and test procedures specified in IEC61340-4-4, Electrostatics — Part 4-4: Standard Test Methods for Specific Applications — ElectrostaticClassification of Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers (FIBC), before being used in hazardousenvironments. [652:8.4.7.4.6]

9.3.4.6.1

Intended use shall include both the product being handled and the environment in which the FIBC will beused. [652:8.4.7.4.6.1]

9.3.4.6.2

Materials used to construct inner baffles, other than mesh or net baffles, shall meet the requirements forthe bag type in which they are to be used. [652:8.4.7.4.6.2]

9.3.4.6.3*

Inner liners shall be suitable to maintain the electrostatic characteristics of the bag types in which they areused.

9.3.4.6.4

Documentation of test results shall be made available to the AHJ. [652:8.4.7.4.6.3]

9.3.4.6.5

FIBCs that have not been tested and verified for type in accordance with IEC 61340-4-4, Electrostatics —Part 4 4: Standard Test Methods for Specific Applications — Electrostatic Classification of FlexibleIntermediate Bulk Containers (FIBC), shall not be used for combustible dusts or in flammable vaporatmospheres. [652:8.4.7.4.6.4]




Based on changes to the FIBC sections, the Correlating Committee is asking the TC to review Table A.9.3.4.6 Use of Different Types of FIBCs and Figure A.4.3.4.6 (flow chart) to determine if updates are needed. The table and flow chart are now extracted from NFPA 652, but the Correlating Committee recognizes that the subject matter experts on this topic reside on the NFPA 654 committee.



Submitter Full Name: CC on CMD-AACOrganization: CC on CMD-AACStreet Address:City:State:Zip:


14 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

45 of 68

Submittal Date: Fri Apr 27 13:50:52 EDT 2018


15 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

46 of 68

Correlating Committee Note No. 6-NFPA 654-2017 [ Section No. A.9.3.4.6 ]




CommitteeStatement:

Based on changes to the FIBC sections, the Correlating Committee is asking the TC to review TableA.9.3.4.6 Use of Different Types of FIBCs and Figure A.4.3.4.6 (flow chart) to determine if updates areneeded. The table and flow chart are now extracted from NFPA 652, but the Correlating Committeerecognizes that the subject matter experts on this topic reside on the NFPA 654 committee.

Ballot Results




Not Returned

Osborn, Jack E.

Affirmative All

Aiken, Chris


Cholin, John M.


Davis, Scott G.

Frank, Walter L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Kreitman, Kevin

LeBlanc, John A.


McAlister, Steve


1 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:59 AM

47 of 68

Roberts, Jeffrey R.

Stevenson, Bill

Taveau, Jérôme R.


2 of 2 4/27/2018, 11:59 AM

48 of 68

Public Comment No. 15-NFPA 654-2018 [ New Section after 9.5.3 ]

9.5.4Source collection of combustible dust from a hot process (spark or hear generation) shall be equipped withan immersion separator using an appropriate inert fluid called out for the material.


Specific requirement for combustible dust hot work that is not covered by NFPA 51B. Prevents potential for ignition source to reach filter chamber where, in certain conditions, and explosion event could occur.





16 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

49 of 68

Public Comment No. 1-NFPA 654-2018 [ Section No. A.7.13.1.6.3 ]

A.7.13.1.6.3

Recommended design, maintenance, and operating guidelines for recirculation of industrial exhaustsystems, as described in Chapter 7 of ACGIH Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practicefor Design should be followed.

When “clean air” is being returned to the facility interior it is important to understand that the return air mightcontain some residual dust depending on the type of AMS. Usually the filter media in a dust collector trapthe large particles, but there might be very fine material that manages to get through the filter media andaccumulates downstream within the clean air plenum and return air duct. A routine maintenance program isnecessary to ensure that the clean air side of the dust collection system remains sufficiently clean toachieve the safety objectives of the standard. The use of HEPA secondary filters can often reduce thefrequency of inspection but should not be expected to eliminate it.

Flame-arresting/particulate retention devices have been proposed for use as a deflagration isolation meansfor return air ducts. The use of such devices is the subject of considerable debate, and NFPA 69 has notyet established the criteria for the application and limitations of these devices for this purpose. NFPA 654previously contained a prohibition on the use of these devices for deflagration isolation in this service. Thisprohibition was removed pending consideration of this matter by the NFPA 69 committee. Removal of thisprohibition should not be construed as an endorsement of flame-arresting/particulate retention devices foruse as a deflagration isolation means for return air ducts in combustible dust service.


Discussions during a recent meeting of the NFPA 69 committee suggested that some may interpret the removal of the prohibition on the use of these devices as an intent to allow their use. The proposed addition to this annex material is intended to more clearly communicate the intent of the NFPA 654 committee with respect to the removal of the prohibition.

Related Item• PI-1


Submitter Full Name: Walter FrankOrganization: Frank Risk Solutions, Inc.Street Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Wed Feb 21 09:47:32 EST 2018


17 of 17 5/10/2018, 12:42 PM

50 of 68

Committee Input No. 25-NFPA 654-2017 [ Global Input ]

NFPA 654 will be reorganized at the Second Draft Stage to align with the chapters and sections in NFPA652 once the Second Draft of NFPA 652 2019 is available. The attached Excel file shows preliminary movesbased on the 2016 edition of NFPA 652, but some of the sections in NFPA 652 have significantly changed.

The task group will also clearly identify the requirements that are retroactive by creating headings titled"Retroactivity".

Supplemental Information

File Name Description Approved654_to_652_restructure.xlsx


Submitter Full Name: Laura MorenoOrganization: National Fire Protection AssocStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Wed Aug 02 13:58:21 EDT 2017

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

NFPA 654 will be reorganized at the Second Draft Stage to align with the chapters and sections inNFPA 652 once the Second Draft of NFPA 652 2019 is available. The attached Excel file showspreliminary moves based on the 2016 edition of NFPA 652, but some of the sections in NFPA 652have significantly changed.

The task group will also clearly identify the requirements that are retroactive by creating headingstitled "Retroactivity".

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results

This item has not been balloted


1 of 10 5/1/2018, 10:52 AM

51 of 68

654

Old Chapter Old section New chapter New section Comments

1

654 has a goal statement, 652 does not. 652 has "units and

formulas", 654 does not. **Add 1.7 from NFPA 652 to NFPA 654

2 No change

3 No change

4 4.1.1 8 8.1 applies to 8.2 and 8.3 (facility and process design) not ISD

4 4.1.2 9 9.10

4 4.1.3 4 No change

4.2 7

4.3 9 9.9

4.4 9 9.8

4.5 8 8.8

4.6 4 No change

NA 5

654 doesn't have the equivalent of chapter 5 for material

evaluation **"See NFPA 652"

5 6 Note: 652 has more specifics than 654 in sections 6.1.3 to 6.1.11

6 8 8.2

7 7.1.4 and 7.1.6 8 8.9

7 7.1.5 8 8.10

7 8 8.3

8 8.1 8 8.8

8 8.2 8 8.4

9 8 8.5

NA 8 8.6 654 doesn't have the equivalent of 8.6 for PPE

10 8 8.10

11 11.1 to 11.4 9 9.5

11 11.5 9 9.6

12 9 9.4

9 various 654 doesn't have the equivalent of 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.7, 9.11, or 9.12

52 of 68

Committee Input No. 31-NFPA 654-2017 [ Global Input ]

See attached word file.

The committee will be extracting the attached requirements from NFPA 652 at the Second Draft stage. Atask group has been formed which will prepare recommendations to incorporate extracted text from NFPA652 with the existing text in NFPA 654.

Supplemental Information

File Name Description ApprovedCI_31-_Conductivity_and_Static_requirements_from_NFPA_652.docx


Submitter Full Name: Laura MorenoOrganization: National Fire Protection AssocStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Tue Aug 15 13:53:43 EDT 2017

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The committee will be extracting the attached requirements from NFPA 652 at the Second Draftstage. A task group has been formed which will prepare recommendations to incorporateextracted text from NFPA 652 with the existing text in NFPA 654.

ResponseMessage:

Public Input No. 28-NFPA 654-2017 [Section No. 9.3.2.1]

Ballot Results

This item has not been balloted


2 of 10 5/1/2018, 10:52 AM

53 of 68

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NFPA 652 PER SR-27 CURRENT TEXT IN NFPA 654, 2017 EDITION Note: if SR-27 did not modify annex material for a requirement, I did not present the annex material below.

Note: If this column is empty, I could not find any content in NFPA 654 corresponding to the NFPA 652 content.

3.3.10 Conductive * Possessing the ability to allow the flow of an electric charge. A.3.3.10 Conductive. A typical threshold for solid materials of construction would be a volume resistivity less than 105 ohm-meters.

Add these three definitions to NFPA 654

3.3.18* Dissipative. A material or a construction that will reduce static charge to acceptable levels. [77, 2014] A.3.3.18 Dissipative. Typically, a dissipative material is one having a surface resistivity between 105 and 109 ohms per square or a volume resistivity between 105 and 109 ohm-meters. The intent is to limit the voltage achieved by electrostatic charge accumulation to a potential that is less than the threshold voltage for incendive discharge. Some applications might require different resistivities to accommodate different charging rates or desired relaxation times.

3.3.x* Nonconductive. A material or a construction that has the ability to accumulate charge, even when in contact with ground. A.3.3.x Nonconductive. Typically, a nonconductive material is one having a surface resistivity greater than 109 ohms per square or a volume resistivity greater than 109 ohm-meters.

8.4.7* Electrostatic Discharges. A.8.4.7 Several types of electrostatic discharges are capable of igniting combustible dusts and hybrid mixtures. The requirements in section 8.4.7 are intended to protect against the following four types of discharge: Brush, cone (or bulking brush), propagating brush, and capacitive spark. Brush discharges occur when electrostatic charge accumulates on a nonconductive surface and is discharged to nearby conductor. These discharges have a maximum theoretical discharge energy of 3-5 mJ, which is sufficient to ignite most flammable vapors and gases. There are no records of brush discharges igniting combustible dusts outside of laboratory settings. In the first edition of this standard, a 3 mJ MIE limit was applied as a minimum criterion for the use of nonconductive system components. The intent of this criterion was to ensure that brush discharges were prevented when the MIE was less than the theoretical upper limit of brush discharge energy. However, even where combustible dusts have MIE

9.3* Static Electricity. The requirements of 9.3.2 through 9.3.4 shall be applied retroactively. [Not sure how we addressed retroactivity on this topic in NFPA 652] 9.3.1 For electrostatic hazard assessment purposes, MIE determination of dust clouds shall be based on a purely capacitive discharge circuit in accordance with ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air. [No similar requirement in NFPA 652]

54 of 68

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NFPA 652 PER SR-27 CURRENT TEXT IN NFPA 654, 2017 EDITION values less than 3 mJ, the diffuse nature of a brush discharge makes it a less effective ignition source than the capacitive spark used for determining the MIE value. Cone or bulking brush discharges occur when resistive solids are transferred into containers where the charge accumulates in the bulk material. The compaction of the charges by gravity creates a strong electric field across the top surface of the material. When the field strength exceeds the breakdown voltage of air, a cone discharge occurs across the surface of the pile terminating at a conductive object (typically the vessel wall.) The energy of a cone discharge is dependent on the size of the container (among other parameters), and discharges up to 20 mJ can occur in process equipment. One particular situation in which cone discharges can occur is in filling FIBCs. For nonconductive containers and vessels such as FIBCs, discharges can occur across the full width (as opposed to the radius or half-width for conductive vessels). For a typical nonconductive FIBC, discharges up to 3 mJ can occur. Propagating brush discharges occur when the rapid flow of particulate material generates a high surface charge on a thin nonconductive surface. The presence of this charge on one side of the material induces an opposite charge on the other side, essentially forming a capacitor. If the voltage difference across the material exceeds the material’s breakdown voltage, then a pinhole channel is created at a weak spot in the material and the charges on the opposite surfaces are discharged through the channel. Propagating brush discharge energy can be on the order of 1000 mJ. Propagating brush discharges cannot occur if the material is sufficiently thick (greater than 8 mm) or has a sufficiently low breakdown voltage (less than 4 kV for films or sheets, or less than 6 kV for woven materials). The presence of an external grounding wire on a nonconductive object will not prevent a propagating brush discharge. Capacitive spark discharges occur when the voltage difference between two conductive objects exceeds the breakdown voltage of the medium between them (typically air). Capacitive sparks can ignite both flammable vapors/gases and combustible dusts. For more information on electrostatic discharges, refer to NFPA 77 and EN 60079-32-1. 8.4.7.1 Conductive Equipment. 8.4.7.1.1 Particulate handling equipment shall be conductive unless the provisions of 8.4.7.1.2 are applicable.

9.3.2* Conductive Components. 9.3.2.1* All system components shall be conductive.

Commented [BS1]: Delete existing annex text

55 of 68

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NFPA 652 PER SR-27 CURRENT TEXT IN NFPA 654, 2017 EDITION 8.4.7.1.2 Nonconductive system components shall be permitted where all of the following conditions are met:

1. *Hybrid mixtures and flammable gas/vapor atmospheres are not present.

A.8.4.7.1.2 (1) This requirement is intended to prevent ignition of hybrid mixtures or flammable gas/vapor atmospheres by brush discharges from nonconductive surfaces.

2. *Conductive particulate solids are not handled.

A.8.4.7.1.2. (2) This requirement is intended to prevent ignition of combustible dusts by the isolation of conductive particulate solids where they can accumulate charge and create capacitive spark discharges to grounded conductive objects.

3. * The nonconductive components do not result in isolation of conductive components from ground.

A.8.4.7.1.2 (3) This requirement is intended to prevent ignition of combustible dusts by capacitive sparks from isolated process equipment

4. *The breakdown strength across nonconductive sheets, coatings, or membranes does not exceed 4 kV, and the breakdown strength across nonconductive woven objects does not exceed 6 V, when used in high surface charging processes.

A.8.4.7.1.2 (4) This requirement is intended to prevent ignition of combustible dusts by propagating brush discharges. Pneumatic conveying is an example of a process operation that can generate high surface charging.

9.3.2.2 Nonconductive system components shall be permitted where all of the following conditions are met:

(1) Hybrid mixtures are not present.

(2) Conductive dusts are not handled.

(3) The MIE of the material being handled is greater than 3 mJ.

(4) The nonconductive components do not result in isolation of conductive components from ground.

(5) * The breakdown strength across nonconductive sheets, coatings, or membranes does not exceed 4 kV when used in high surface charging processes.

A.9.3.2.2(5) The potential for propagating brush discharges exists where nonconductive materials with breakdown voltages exceeding 4 kV are exposed to processes that generate strong surface charges such as pneumatic conveying. Such discharges do not occur where the breakdown voltage is less than 4 kV.

8.4.7.1.3* Bonding and grounding with a resistance of less than 1.0 × 106 ohms to ground shall be provided for conductive components.

9.3.2.3* Bonding and grounding with a resistance of less than 1.0 × 106 ohms to ground shall be provided for conductive components.

Commented [BS2]: Delete associated annex material

56 of 68

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NFPA 652 PER SR-27 CURRENT TEXT IN NFPA 654, 2017 EDITION A. 8.4.7.1.3 This requirement is intended to prevent ignition of combustible dusts, flammable gas/vapor atmospheres, or hybrid mixtures by capacitive sparks from isolated process equipment. Where the bonding and grounding system is all metal, resistance in continuous ground paths typically is less than 10 ohms. Such systems include those having multiple components. Greater resistance usually indicates that the metal path is not continuous, usually because of loose connections or corrosion. A permanent or fixed grounding system that is acceptable for power circuits or for lightning protection is more than adequate for a static electricity grounding system.

See Figure A.8.4.7.1.3 for illustrations of bonding and grounding principles. Figure A.8.4.7.1.3 Bonding and Grounding.

A.9.3.2.3 Where the bonding/grounding system is all metal, resistance in continuous ground paths is typically less than 10 ohms. Such systems include those having multiple components. Greater resistance usually indicates that the metal path is not continuous, usually because of loose connections or corrosion. A grounding system that is acceptable for power circuits or for lightning protection is more than adequate for a static electricity grounding system.

9.3.3 Where belt drives are used, the belts shall be electrically conductive and have a resistance of less than 1.0 × 106 ohms to ground. [No similar requirement in NFPA 652]

8.4.7.1.4* Flexible Connectors. A.8.5.7.1.4 – In order to properly specify a flexible connector for combustible dust service, it is necessary to know the end-to-end resistance. The end-to-end resistance is typically not specified by the suppliers of flexible connectors. This makes it necessary for the user to measure it. ISO 8031 Rubber and plastics hoses and hose assemblies —Determination of electrical resistance and conductivity provides methods to determine the end-to-end resistance. For convenience, here is a brief description of a similar procedure:

1. It is preferred to measure the actual flexible connector to be used, but if it is too long for this to be practical, a shorter length (for example, 6 in. to 24 in.) can be used. The measured end-to-end resistance per unit length can then be multiplied by the total flexible connector length to get the overall flexible connector end-to-end resistance.

2. The flexible connector should be placed on a non-conductive surface, such as a rigid sheet of PTFE, polyethylene, or polypropylene. It is important that neither the flexible connector or megohm meter metal connections are touched by the operator’s bare skin during the measurement as this will short the circuit. In addition, the rigid polymer sheet and flexible connector should be dry during the measurement.

57 of 68

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NFPA 652 PER SR-27 CURRENT TEXT IN NFPA 654, 2017 EDITION 3. The leads on a megohm meter should be contacted on the inside surface of the

flexible connector at each end. This should be done at several points on the inside surface to ensure that a consistent reading is obtained. Care should be taken to make measurements at the greatest distance from any supporting wires in the flexible connector to avoid measuring the resistance across the wire. The readings should be taken at approximately 500 V.

[ISO 8031, Rubber and plastics hoses and hose assemblies — Determination of electrical resistance and conductivity, 3rd Ed, Rubber and rubber products Technical Committee ISO/TC 45, Subcommittee SC 1, Hoses (rubber and plastics), Editor. 2009, ISO (the International Organization for Standardization): Switzerland. p. 22.]

8.4.7.1.4.1* Retroactivity This section shall not be required to be applied retroactively. A.8.4.7.4.1 Flexible connectors wear out over time. The intent of this statement is that existing connectors would be replaced with compliant flexible connectors at the end of their service life.

8.4.7.1.4.2 Flexible connectors longer than 6.6 ft (2 m) shall have an end-to-end resistance of less than 1.0 × 108 ohms to ground even where an internal or external bonding wire connects the equipment to which the flexible connector is attached.

7.6.3* Where flexible hose is used to connect conductive components, the resistance between the conductive components shall be less than 1 × 106 ohms. 7.6.5 Bellows shall be permitted to be used for the free movement of weigh bins if the bellows are conductive and the equipment is bonded and grounded. [The above is the only static-related content on flexible connectors that I could find in NFPA 654.]

8.4.7.1.4.3* Where flammable vapors are not present, flexible connectors with a resistance equal to or greater than 1.0 × 108 ohms shall be permitted under either of the following conditions:

1. The dust has an MIE greater than 2000 mJ. 2. The maximum powder transfer velocity is less than 2000 fpm (10 m/s).

58 of 68

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NFPA 652 PER SR-27 CURRENT TEXT IN NFPA 654, 2017 EDITION 8.4.7.2 Maximum Particulate Transport Rates. 8.4.7.2.1* The maximum particulate transport rates in 8.4.7.2.3 shall apply when the volume of the vessel being filled is greater than 35 ft3(1 m3), and a single feed stream to the vessel meets both of the following conditions:

1. *The suspendable fraction of the transported material has an MIE of less than or equal to 20 mJ.

2. *The transported material has an electrical volume resistivity greater than 1.0 × 10 10ohm-m.

8.4.7.2.2* The maximum particulate transport rate in 8.4.7.2.3 shall apply when the volume of the vessel being filled is greater than 35 ft3 (1 m3) and either of the following conditions is met:

1. *The transported material having an electrical volume resistivity greater than 1.0 × 10 10 ohm-m is loaded into a vessel containing a powder or dust having an MIE less than or equal to 20 mJ.

2. *The transported material having an electrical volume resistivity greater than 1.0 × 10 10 ohm-m is loaded into a vessel containing a powder or dust having an MIE less than or equal to 20 mJ, followed by a powder or dust having an MIE less than or equal to 20 mJ.

8.4.7.2.3* Where the conditions of 8.4.7.2.1 or 8.4.7.2.2 are met, the maximum permitted material transport rate of particles shall be limited by the following:

1. 3.1 lb/s (1.4 kg/s) for particulates larger than 0.08 in. (2 mm). 2. 12.3 lb/s (5.6 kg/s) for particulates between 0.016 in. (0.4 mm) and 0.08 in. (2 mm) in

size. 3. 18.3 lb/s (8.3 kg/s) for particulates smaller than 0.016 in. (0.4 mm).

59 of 68

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NFPA 652 PER SR-27 CURRENT TEXT IN NFPA 654, 2017 EDITION 8.4.7.3* Grounding of Personnel. 8.4.7.3.1* Where an explosive atmosphere exists and is subject to ignition from an electrostatic spark discharge from ungrounded personnel, personnel involved in manually filling or emptying particulate containers or vessels shall be grounded during such operations.

8.4.7.3.2 Personnel grounding shall not be required where both of the following conditions are met:

1. Flammable gases, vapors, and hybrid mixtures are not present. 2. *The minimum ignition energy of the dust cloud is greater than 30 mJ.

60 of 68

Committee Input No. 28-NFPA 654-2017 [ New Section after 7.17 ]

7.19 Additive Manufacturing7.XX.1 General Requirements.

[7.XX.1.1 Where metal powders are used as part of the additive manufacturing process NFPA 484 chapter13 shall apply.]

7.XX.1.1* Due to the special hazards of additive manufacturing, a DHA, conducted per Chapter X, shallinclude the need for inerting, proper personal protective equipment (PPE), and other fire and explosionprotection measures during all the operations delineated in Section 7.XX.2

A.7.XX.1.1 A DHA for additive manufacturing and auxiliary equipment using combustible dusts orpowders, requires a comprehensive understanding of this complex equipment. Manufacturer’s literatureaddressing the hazards of using this equipment is necessary but not sufficient input for the DHA. Inertingdecisions should be based on the combustibility properties of the particular materials being used.

7.XX.1.2 Additive manufacturing facility construction and layout, including powder storage provisions, shallmeet the requirements of Chapters X through Y for all applicable materials in addition to the requirementsof this chapter.

7.XX.1.3* Operations having more than 50 kgs in the system at any one time shall meet the requirementsof 7.XX.1.4.

A.7.XX.1.3 The 50 kg threshold was established by the technical committee as a subjective limit, basedon the higher hazard posed by handling large quantities of material.

7.XX.1.4* Provisions for Emergency Shutdown for Large Systems.

A.7.XX.1.4 See NFPA 79 for further information on emergency shutdown.

7.XX.1.4.1 The system shall shut down on any of the following conditions:

(1) Loss of purge gas

(2) High chamber temperature (50°C above normal operating temperature)

(3) Loss of vacuum

7.XX.1.4.2 The system shall be provided with an automatic emergency shutdown device.

7.XX.1.4.3* The system shall also be provided with a local and a remote manual emergencyshutdown device.

A.7.XX.1.4.3 The local manual shutdown should be near the control station for the machine. The


3 of 10 5/1/2018, 10:52 AM

61 of 68

remote manual shutdown should be located a minimum of 25 ft away from the machine and in thepath of the means of egress for the area.

7.XX.1.4.3.1 Shutdown shall deactivate the affected printing operations.

7.XX.1.4.3.2 Shutdown shall not deactivate the purge gas or the vacuum system of the affectedsystem.

7.XX.1.5 Shipping and Handling Containers.

7.XX.1.5.1 When nonmetallic containers or liners are used for powders, the containers or linersshall be conductive or static dissipative.

A.7.XX.1.5.1 See NFPA 77 for information on conductive and static-dissipative liners andcontainers. If powder is received in containers that are not metallic or static dissipative, extremecare should be used in the transfer of metal powder from the container. The amount of free fall ofthe powder should be minimized. The rate of transfer should be slow to reduce the amount ofstatic charges produced by the transfer. Although the shipping container cannot begrounded/bonded, consideration should be given to embedding a metallic grounding stick into theshipping container that would be in contact with the metal powder.

7.XX.1.5.2* Where the requirement of 13.1.5.1 is not met, a documented risk assessmentacceptable to the AHJ shall be permitted to be conducted to determine the alternative mitigationsto be implemented.

A.7.XX.1.5.2 The committee intends that containers used for shipping and handling of additivemanufacturing alloys will be required to be conductive or static-dissipative in the next edition andthat this permissive provision will be removed.

7.XX.2 Additive Manufacturing Equipment and Operations.

7.XX.2.1 General.

7.XX.2.1.1 All pieces of fixed equipment shall be grounded and bonded in accordance withNFPA 77.

7.XX.2.1.2 Personnel involved in manually filling or emptying containers or vessels, sieving,handling open containers, or cleaning shall be grounded/bonded during such operations.

7.XX.2.2 Powder Weighing Operations.

7.XX.2.2.1 Powder weighing equipment shall have an installed ground connection. See NFPA77, paragraphs 10.1.1 and 7.4.1.3.

7.XX.2.2.2* Conductive powder containers shall be bonded to the weighing equipment beforethe transfer of material to and from the weighing equipment.


4 of 10 5/1/2018, 10:52 AM

62 of 68

A.7.XX.2.2.2 Bonding methods are described in NFPA 77.

7.XX.2.2.3 All containers or hoppers used for intermediate handling of materials shall beconductive.

7.XX.2.2.4* Where the requirement of 7.XX.2.2.3 is not met, a documented risk assessmentacceptable to the AHJ shall be permitted to be conducted to determine the alternativemitigations to be implemented.

A.7.XX.2.2.4 The committee intends that containers used for intermediate handling ofadditive manufacturing alloys will be required to be conductive in the next edition and thatthis permissive provision will be removed.

7.XX.2.2.5* Control measures shall be employed to avoid the formation of suspended dustclouds during transfer of powder to

technical committee on handling and conveying of … · 2018. 5. 10. · technical committee on...

Documents