Report onProposals

2013 Annual Revision Cycle

NOTE: The proposed NFPA documents addressed in this Report on

Proposals (ROP) and in a follow-up Report on Comments (ROC) will

only be presented for action when proper Amending Motions have been

submitted to the NFPA by the deadline of April 5, 2013. The June 2013

NFPA Conference & Expo will be held June 10–13, 2013, at McCormick

Place Convention Center, Chicago, IL. During the meeting, the Association

Technical Meeting (Tech Session) will be held June 12–13, 2013.

Documents that receive no motions will not be presented at the meeting

and instead will be forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on

issuance. For more information on the rules and for up-to-date information

on schedules and deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the

NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Standards Administration.

ISSN 1079-5332 Copyright © 2012 All Rights Reserved

NFPA and National Fire Protection Association are registered trademarks of the National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA 02169.

National Fire Protection Association®1 BATTERYMARCH PARK, QUINCY, MA 02169-7471

A compilation of NFPA® TechnicalCommittee Reports on Proposals for public review and comment

Public Comment Deadline: August 31, 2012

Information on NFPA Codes and Standards Development

I. Applicable Regulations. The primary rules governing the processing of NFPA documents (codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides) are the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects (Regs). Other applicable rules include NFPA Bylaws, NFPA Technical Meeting Convention Rules, NFPA Guide for the Conduct of Participants in the NFPA Standards Development Process, and the NFPA Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council. Most of these rules and regulations are contained in the NFPA Directory. For copies of the Directory, contact Codes and Standards Administration at NFPA Headquarters; all these documents are also available on the NFPA website at “www.nfpa.org.”

The following is general information on the NFPA process. All participants, however, should refer to the actual rules and regulations for a full understanding of this process and for the criteria that govern participation.

II. Technical Committee Report. The Technical Committee Report is defined as “the Report of the Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee (if any) on a document consisting of the ROP and ROC.” A Technical Committee Report consists of the Report on Proposals (ROP), as modified by the Report on Comments (ROC), published by the Association.

III. Step 1: Report on Proposals (ROP). The ROP is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees, accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more proposals on text for a new document or to amend an existing document.” Any objection to an action in the ROP must be raised through the filing of an appropriate Comment for consideration in the ROC or the objection will be considered resolved.

IV. Step 2: Report on Comments (ROC). The ROC is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more comments resulting from public review of the Report on Proposals (ROP).” The ROP and the ROC together constitute the Technical Committee Report. Any outstanding objection following the ROC must be raised through an appropriate Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting or the objection will be considered resolved.

V. Step 3a: Action at Association Technical Meeting. Following the publication of the ROC, there is a period during which those wishing to make proper Amending Motions on the Technical Committee Reports must signal their intention by submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Documents that receive notice of proper Amending Motions (Certified Amending Motions) will be presented for action at the annual June Association Technical Meeting. At the meeting, the NFPA membership can consider and act on these Certified Amending Motions as well as Follow-up Amending Motions, that is, motions that become necessary as a result of a previous successful Amending Motion. (See 4.6.2 through 4.6.9 of Regs for a summary of the available Amending Motions and who may make them.) Any outstanding objection following action at an Association Technical Meeting (and any further Technical Committee consideration following successful Amending Motions, see Regs at 4.7) must be raised through an appeal to the Standards Council or it will be considered to be resolved.

VI. Step 3b: Documents Forwarded Directly to the Council. Where no Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) is received and certified in accordance with the Technical Meeting Convention Rules, the document is forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on issuance. Objections are deemed to be resolved for these documents.

VII. Step 4a: Council Appeals. Anyone can appeal to the Standards Council concerning procedural or substantive matters related to the development, content, or issuance of any document of the Association or on matters within the purview of the authority of the Council, as established by the Bylaws and as determined by the Board of Directors. Such appeals must be in written form and filed with the Secretary of the Standards Council (see 1.6 of Regs). Time constraints for filing an appeal must be in accordance with 1.6.2 of the Regs. Objections are deemed to be resolved if not pursued at this level.

VIII. Step 4b: Document Issuance. The Standards Council is the issuer of all documents (see Article 8 of Bylaws). The Council acts on the issuance of a document presented for action at an Association Technical Meeting within 75 days from the date of the recommendation from the Association Technical Meeting, unless this period is extended by the Council (see 4.8 of Regs). For documents forwarded directly to the Standards Council, the Council acts on the issuance of the document at its next scheduled meeting, or at such other meeting as the Council may determine (see 4.5.6 and 4.8 of Regs).

IX. Petitions to the Board of Directors. The Standards Council has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the codes and standards development process and the issuance of documents. However, where extraordinary circumstances requiring the intervention of the Board of Directors exist, the Board of Directors may take any action necessary to fulfill its obligations to preserve the integrity of the codes and standards development process and to protect the interests of the Association. The rules for petitioning the Board of Directors can be found in the Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council and in 1.7 of the Regs.

X. For More Information. The program for the Association Technical Meeting (as well as the NFPA website as information becomes available) should be consulted for the date on which each report scheduled for consideration at the meeting will be presented. For copies of the ROP and ROC as well as more information on NFPA rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Codes & Standards Administration at (617) 984-7246.

i

2013 Annual Revision Cycle ROP Contents

by NFPA Numerical Designation

Note: Documents appear in numerical order.

NFPA No. Type Action Title Page No.

25 P Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems ............... 25-1 51B P Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work ........................................... 51B-1 56(PS) P Standard for Fire and Explosion Prevention During Cleaning and Purging of Flammable Gas Piping Systems .......................................................................................................... 56(PS)-1 58 P Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code ....................................................................................................................... 58-1 77 P Recommended Practice on Static Electricity .................................................................................................. 77-1 96 P Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations.......................... 96-1 130 P Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems ............................................................. 130-1 306 P Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels ................................................................................... 306-1 403 P Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Services at Airports .......................................................... 403-1 412 P Standard for Evaluating Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Foam Equipment ............................................ 412-1

502 P Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways ............................................... 502-1 610 P Guide for Emergency and Safety Operations at Motorsports Venues ......................................................... 610-1 780 P Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems..................................................................... 780-1 1002 P Standard for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications ................................................ 1002-1

1021 P Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications ................................................................................ 1021-1

1026 P Standard for Incident Management Personnel Professional Qualifications ............................................... 1026-1 1031 P Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Inspector and Plan Examiner ....................................... 1031-1 1033 P Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator ................................................................... 1033-1 1123 P Code for Fireworks Display ....................................................................................................................... 1123-1 1143 P Standard for Wildland Fire Management ................................................................................................... 1143-1

TYPES OF ACTION

P Partial Revision N New Document R Reconfirmation W Withdrawal

ii

2013 Annual Revision Cycle ROP Committees Reporting

Type Action Page No. Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 403 Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Services at Airport P 403-1 412 Standard for Evaluating Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Foam Equipment P 412-1 Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems 130 Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems P 130-1 Forest and Rural Fire Protection 1143 Standard for Wildland Fire Management P 1143-1 Gas Hazards 306 Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels P 306-1 Gas Process Safety 56(PS) Standard for Fire and Explosion Prevention During Cleaning and Purging of Flammable Gas Piping

Systems

P

56(PS)-1 Hot Work Operations 51B Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work P 51B-1 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems 25 Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems P 25-1 Lightning Protection 780 Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems P 780-1 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 58 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code P 58-1 Professional Qualifications Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications 1002 Standard for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications P 1002-1 Fire Officer Professional Qualifications 1021 Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications P 1021-1 Incident Management Professional Qualifications 1026 Standard for Incident Management Personnel Professional Qualifications P 1026-1 Fire Inspector Professional Qualifications 1031 Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Inspector and Plan Examiner P 1031-1 1033 Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator P 1033-1 Pyrotechnics 1123 Code for Fireworks Display P 1123-1 Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection 502 Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways P 502-1 Static Electricity 77 Recommended Practice on Static Electricity P 77-1 Safety at Motorsports Venues 610 Guide for Emergency and Safety Operations at Motorsports Venues P 610-1 Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances 96 Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations P 96-1

iii

COMMITTEE MEMBER CLASSIFICATIONS1,2,3,4

The following classifications apply to Committee members and represent their principal interest in the activity of the Committee. 1. M Manufacturer: A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof,

that is affected by the standard. 2. U User: A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the

standard. 3. IM Installer/Maintainer: A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product,

assembly, or system affected by the standard. 4. L Labor: A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace. 5. RT Applied Research/Testing Laboratory: A representative of an independent testing laboratory or independent

applied research organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards. 6. E Enforcing Authority: A representative of an agency or an organization that promulgates and/or enforces

standards. 7. I Insurance: A representative of an insurance company, broker, agent, bureau, or inspection agency. 8. C Consumer: A person who is or represents the ultimate purchaser of a product, system, or service affected by the

standard, but who is not included in (2). 9. SE Special Expert: A person not representing (1) through (8) and who has special expertise in the scope of the

standard or portion thereof. NOTE 1: “Standard” connotes code, standard, recommended practice, or guide. NOTE 2: A representative includes an employee. NOTE 3: While these classifications will be used by the Standards Council to achieve a balance for Technical Committees, the Standards Council may determine that new classifications of member or unique interests need representation in order to foster the best possible Committee deliberations on any project. In this connection, the Standards Council may make such appointments as it deems appropriate in the public interest, such as the classification of “Utilities” in the National Electrical Code Committee. NOTE 4: Representatives of subsidiaries of any group are generally considered to have the same classification as the parent organization.

FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2013 Annual Revision CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDST, August 31, 2012

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #:

Date Rec’d:

Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: If choosing the download option, you must view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)

Date 8/1/200X Name John B. Smith Tel. No. 253-555-1234

Company Email

Street Address 9 Seattle St. City Tacoma State WA Zip 98402

***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.

Please indicate organization represented (if any) Fire Marshals Assn. of North America

1. (a) NFPA Document Title National Fire Alarm Code NFPA No. & Year NFPA 72, 200X ed.

(b) Section/Paragraph 4.4.1.1

2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): 72-7

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 wording to be deleted (deleted wording).]

Delete exception.

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would 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 may be abstracted for publication.)

A properly installed and maintained system should be free of ground faults. The occurrence of one or more ground faults should be required to cause a ‘trouble’ signal because it indicates a condition that could contribute to future malfunction of the system. Ground fault protection has been widely available on these systems for years and its cost is negligible. Requiring it on all systems will promote better installations, maintenance and reliability.

6. Copyright Assignment

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

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR

Fax to: (617) 770-3500 OR Email to: proposals_comments@nfpa.org

FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2013 Annual Revision CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDST, August 31, 2012

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #:

Date Rec’d:

Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: If choosing the download option, you must view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)

Date Name Tel. No.

Company Email

Street Address City State Zip

***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.

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 wording to be deleted (deleted wording).]

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would 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 may be abstracted for publication.)

6. Copyright Assignment

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

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR

Fax to: (617) 770-3500 OR Email to: proposals_comments@nfpa.org 5/15/2012

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, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

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

Step 4 Association Technical Meeting

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

▼ NFPA membership meets each June at the Association Technical Meeting 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.

The Association Technical 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 Association Technical Meeting that takes place at the NFPA Annual Meeting.

The Association Technical Meeting 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 an Association Technical Meeting. The following presents some of the main features of how a Report is handled.

The Filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Before making an allowable motion at an Association Technical Meeting, 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 Association Technical Meeting.

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 Association Technical Meeting and head straight to the Standards Council for issuance. The remaining documents are then forwarded to the Association Technical Meeting for consideration of the NFPA membership.

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 NFPA Conference & Expo, 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. NFPA rules also define those authorized to make amending motions. 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, the NFPA Regs should be consulted.

Action on Motions at the Association Technical Meeting. In order to actually make a Certified Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting, 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 Association Technical Meeting 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. Subject only to limited review by the NFPA Board of Directors, the decision of the Standards Council is final, and the new NFPA code or standard becomes effective twenty days after Standards Council issuance.

306-1

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306Report of the Committee on

Gas Hazards

James R. Thornton, ChairNewport News Shipbuilding, VA [U]

Robert V. Albert, US Department of the Navy, NH [E] Stephen R. Bayer, Mine Safety Appliances Company, PA [M] Rep. International Safety Equipment Association John T. Bell, Marine Inspection Services Inc., TX [SE] Rep. Marine Chemist Association, Inc. Leslie Blaize, Belay Incorporated, OR [SE] Rep. Marine Chemist Association, Inc. Thomas Cinko, US Coast Guard, DC [E] Joseph J. Cox, Chamber of Shipping of America, DC [SE] Joseph Daddura, US Department of Labor, DC [E] Patrick O. Killeen, Signal International, Inc., MS [U] Rep. Shipbuilders Council of America Paul Manzi, BP Shipping Ltd., United Kingdom [M] Rep. American Petroleum Institute Donald V. Raffo, General Dynamics, Electric Boat Corporation, CT [U] Rick J. Raksnis, CHEMTREC, VA [SE] Joseph A. Riva, American Bureau of Shipping, TX [E] John W. Sansing, Kirby Inland Marine, LP, TX [U] Rep. American Waterways Operators

Alternates

Charles L. Anderson, US Department of the Navy, DC [E] (Alt. to Robert V. Albert) Gregory G. Grondin, Bath Iron Works Corporation, ME [SE] (Alt. to Leslie Blaize) Karen M. Haase, American Petroleum Institute, DC [M] (Alt. to Paul Manzi) Edward J. Willwerth, Marine Chemist Association, Inc., MA [SE] (Alt. to John T. Bell)

Nonvoting

Mark C. Swiatkiewicz, Case Chemicals, United Kingdom [SE]

Staff Liaison: Lawrence Russell

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention of fire and explosion of flammable vapors in compartments or in spaces on board vessels and within shipyards and on the conditions that must exist in those compartments or spaces in order that workers can safely enter them and perform work.

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

The Report of the Technical Committee on Gas Hazards is presented for adoption.

This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Gas Hazards and proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 306, Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels, 2009 edition. NFPA 306-2009 is published in Volume 9 of the 2012 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, which consists of 14 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

306-2

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306_______________________________________________________________ 306-1 Log #CP1 Final Action: Accept(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, Recommendation: Review entire document to: 1) Update any extracted material by preparing separate proposals to do so, and 2) review and update references to other organizations documents, by preparing proposal(s) as required. Substantiation: To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-2 Log #CP9 Final Action: Accept(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, Recommendation: Reorganize NFPA 306-2009 as described below. Renumbering of sections within chapters shall be in accordance with NFPA Manual of Style. Chapter 1 - No reorganization Chapter 2 - No reorganization Chapter 3 - No reorganization Current Chapter 6 is moved and re-numbered as Chapter 4 and add new Section 4.6: Chapter 6 4, Vessels Required to Have Marine Chemist’s Certificate4.6 Obtaining the Marine Chemist’s Certificate. It is the responsibility of the Certificate requester to retain the services of the Marine Chemist, to secure copies of the Marine Chemist’s Certificate in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.3. Chapter 5 - No reorganization, except add the following new section, 5.2.4, and renumber all sections in Chapter 5 thereafter: 5.2.4 Care shall be exercised in the selection of methods and materials used for cleaning or inerting to avoid noncompatibility with previous cargoes.Create a new Chapter 6, Procedures for the Marine Chemist Prior to Issuance of a Certificate Current edition 4.2 becomes 6.1 Current edition 4.2.1 and 4.2.1.1 are combined and become 6.1.1 Current edition 4.2.1.2 becomes 6.1.2 Current edition 4.1 becomes 6.2 with subsections are re-numbered Current edition 4.2.2 becomes 6.3 Delete Current Chapter 7, Additional Requirements for Bulk Chemical Cargo Tanks and all sections therein; and create a new Chapter 7, Standard Safety Designations and Conditions Required with the following reorganization/renumbering of these sections:Current edition 4.3 becomes 7.1 Current edition 4.3.1 Atmosphere Safe For Workers and subsections become 7.1.1 Atmosphere Safe For Workers with subsections numbered thereafter Current edition 4.3.2 Not Safe For Workers becomes 7.1.2 Not Safe For Workers Current edition 4.3.3 Enter With Restrictions and subsections become 7.1.3 Enter With Restrictions with subsections numbered thereafter Current edition 4.3.4 Safe For Hot Work and subsections become 7.1.4 Safe For Hot Work with subsections numbered thereafter Current edition 4.3.5 Not Safe For Hot Work becomes 7.1.5 Not Safe For Hot Work Current edition 4.3.6 Safe For Limited Hot Work and subsections become 7.1.6 Safe For Limited Hot Work with subsections numbered thereafter Current edition 4.3.7 Safe For Shipbreaking and subsections become 7.1.7 Safe For Shipbreaking with subsections numbered thereafter Current edition 4.3.8 Inerted and subsections become 7.1.8 Inerted with subsections numbered thereafter Current edition 4.3.9 Safe For Flammable Compressed Gas becomes 7.1.9 Safe For Flammable Compressed Gas Current edition 4.3.10 Safe for Lay-up and subsections become 7.1.10 Safe For Lay-up with subsections numbered thereafter Create a new Chapter 8, The Marine Chemist’s Certificate, with the following reorganization/renumbering of these sections: Current edition 4.4 becomes 8.1 with subsections renumbered Current edition 4.4.1 becomes 8.1.2 with subsections renumbered Current edition 4.4.2 becomes 8.1.3 with subsections renumbered Current edition 4.4.3 becomes 8.1.4 with subsections renumbered Current edition 4.5 becomes 8.2 with subsections renumbered Current edition 4.6 becomes 8.3 Responsibility for Obtaining the Certificate and Maintaining ConditionsCurrent edition 4.6.1 becomes 8.3.1 Current edition 4.6.2 becomes 8.4 Responsibility for Obtaining the Certificate and Maintaining ConditionsRenumber current Chapter 8 as Chapter 9, Additional Requirements for Flammable Cryogenic Liquid Carriers, with sections & subsections renumbered Annex A Explanatory Material No reorganization except, renumbering of content as required by the above

reorganization changes in other chapters. A.4.3.1 becomes A.7.1.1 A.4.3.1(1) becomes A.7.1.1(1) A.4.3.1(2) becomes A.7.1.1(2) A.4.3.1(3) becomes A.7.1.1(3) A.4.3.1(4) becomes A.7.1.1(4) A.4.3.4(1) becomes A.7.1.4(1) A.4.3.4(2) becomes A.7.1.4(2) A.4.3.4(3) becomes A.7.1.4(3) A.4.3.4(4) becomes A.7.1.4(4) A.4.3.8(1) becomes A.7.1.8(1) A.4.4.1.1 becomes A.8.1.2.1 A.4.4.3 becomes A.8.1.4 A.4.6.2(3) becomes A.8.4(3) A.5.1.3(B) becomes A.5.1.3.5.2 Annex B - No reorganization Annex C - No reorganization Annex D - No reorganization Annex F - No reorganization Substantiation: The Committee believes that the current sequence of the Standard, NFPA 306, does not accurately reflect the actual work flow process and is confusing to users other than Marine Chemists. The Committee believes reorganizing NFPA 306 will allow all users of the standard to better understand the process of when a Marine Chemist is required, who is responsible for getting the Marine Chemist, how to clean the vessel in preparation for a Marine Chemist’s inspection and survey, what the Marine Chemist will ask for prior to his /her inspection and what will be examined during the inspection, and finally, how to prepare, issue and maintain the Marine Chemist’s Certificate. The reorganization will reflect the actual work process as applicable during vessel construction, conversion, repair and other similar shipyard employment. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Comment on Affirmative: RAFFO, D.: The 306 committee requested that I provide a rewrite of the old chapter 4 which is confusing and does not follow the natural progression of an inspection. A proposal is included which changes the sequence and deletes duplicate instructions. It is requested that the committee consider this rewrite. It should be noted that some of the wording does not include the proposed changes to 306. If the new wording is accepted it will replace the current wording. No new requirements have been imposed and a minimum of wording has been added. The new sequence follows the way a Marine Chemist conducts their inspection and I believe it is clearer without changing the intent or existing requirements. The committee should consider this change. It was presented at the Atlantic Sectional Seminar and the chemists agreed that it is clearer and follows the way inspections are conducted. The suggested changes are below. PROPOSED NEW CHAPTER 6 (From old Chapter 4) Chapter 6 Requirements Prior to and During a Marine Chemist Inspection 6.1 Calibration of Instrumentation and Record Keeping 6.1.1* The accuracy and sampling integrity of all instruments used by the Marine Chemist shall be verified before each day’s use by using with a known concentration of test gases in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations. 6.1.2 This record of calibration shall be maintained for at least 3 months. 6.2 Determinations Required Prior to Inspection 6.2.1 The Marine Chemist’s determinations shall include the following: (1) The three previous cargo loadings (2) Nature and extent of the work (3) Starting time and duration of the work 6.3 Determinations Required During Inspection 6.3.1 The Marine Chemist shall personally determine conditions, and shall whenever possible, physically enter each compartment or space to be certified and adjacent spaces when necessary to conduct a visual inspection to the extent necessary to determine atmospheric or fire hazards that may exist within each (affected) compartment or space, ensuring compliance with the minimum applicable requirements prior to issuing a Certificate. 6.3.2 For repair or alterations involving entry or hot work Marine Chemist shall carry out tests in the affected space and in the case of hot work on all adjacent spaces to determine the atmospheric or fire hazards that may exist within each affected compartment or space, ensuring compliance with the minimum applicable requirements prior to issuing a Certificate. 6.3.3 During the inspection the Marine Chemist shall. (1) Conduct tests of cargo lines, vent lines, manifolds, heating coils or other pipelines and accessible openings associated with the scope of work on or in the compartments concerned.(2) Verify that cargo lines, vent lines, manifolds, heating coils or other pipelines associated with the scope of work on or in the compartments concerned which could release hazardous materials into spaces that will be certified ATMOSPHERE SAFE FOR WORKERS or SAFE FOR HOT WORK are either disconnected, blanked off, or otherwise blocked by a positive method, or the valves are positioned and tagged in such a manner to prevent, or by written notice restrict, operation

306-3

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306Current wording follows. Chapter 4 Minimum Requirements for Issuance of Marine Chemist’s Certificate and Maintenance Conditions 4.1 Determination of Conditions. The Marine Chemist shall personally determine conditions, and shall be permitted to issue a Marine Chemist’s Certificate setting forth in writing that the prescribed work to a vessel can be undertaken with safety. The Marine Chemist shall, whenever possible, physically enter each compartment or space and conduct a visual inspection to the extent necessary to determine the atmospheric or fire hazards that exist. The Marine Chemist shall carry out tests within each compartment or space, ensuring compliance with the minimum applicable requirements prior to issuing a Certificate. 4.2 Procedures Prior to Issuance of a Certificate. 4.2.1 Calibration and Function Verification. 4.2.1.1 The accuracy and sampling integrity of all instruments used by the Marine Chemist shall be verified before each day’s use by using with a known concentration of test gases in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations. 4.2.1.2 This record of calibration shall be maintained for at least 3 months. 4.2.2 The Marine Chemist’s determinations shall include a visual inspection and tests of the spaces to be certified; and for repair or alterations involving hot work, all adjacent cargo tanks, spaces adjacent to cargo tanks, and other adjacent spaces containing or having contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or oils in accordance with 4.3.4(4). The determinations also shall include the following: (1) The three previous cargo loadings (2) Nature and extent of the work (3) Starting time and duration of the work (4) Tests of cargo and vent lines at manifolds and accessible openings (5) Verification that pipelines that could release hazardous materials into spaces that will be certified ATMOSPHERE SAFE FOR WORKERS or SAFE FOR HOT WORK are either disconnected, blanked off, or otherwise blocked by a positive method, or the valves are positioned and tagged in such a manner to prevent, or by written notice restrict, operation (6) Tests of cargo heating coils _______________________________________________________________ 306-3 Log #69 Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.1.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tom D. Littlepage, Gulf Marine Chemists, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 1.1.5 This standard applies specifically to those spaces on vessels that are subject to concentrations of combustible gas, flammable and toxic liquids, vapors, gases, and chemicals as here-inafter described. This standard is also applicable in those spaces on vessels that might not contain sufficient oxygen to permit safe entry. This standard may also be optionally applied to other spaces aboard vessels to ensure, and promote safe working conditions.Substantiation: Broadening the scope of 306 to be optionally applicable to “other spaces” for enhanced safety is standard procedure which we have always done. Impediments to this were resolved by 4.3.4(5) All other spaces adjacent to spaces certified “SAFE FOR HOT WORK” are treated in accordance the Marine Chemist requirements and acknowledged on the certificate. Problem resolved.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee separated the two pieces of the submitters proposal and removed unenforcable language as follows: 1.1.5 This standard applies specifically to those spaces on vessels that are subject to concentrations of combustible gas, flammable and toxic liquids, vapors, gases, and chemicals as here-inafter described. This standard is also applicable in those spaces on vessels that might not contain sufficient oxygen to permit safe entry. This standard shall also apply may also be applied other spaces aboard vessels to ensure, and promote safe working conditions. 1.1.5.1 When requested the Marine Chemist shall apply this standard to other spaces to ensure and promote safe working conditions. Committee Statement: As written the scope of the standard only applies to spaces that are subject to concentrations of combustible gas, flammable and toxic liquids, vapors, gases, and chemicals or are oxygen deficient environments. Marine Chemists are often requested to apply the standard to other types of spaces (such as spaces within the accommodation block of a vessel) that may not be subject to concentrations of combustible gas, flammable and toxic liquids, vapors, gases, and chemicals or are oxygen deficient environments. The change made by the Committee reflects this reality. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-4 Log #104 Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.1.6)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Phillip Dovinh, Sound Testing Inc.Recommendation: Pleaser revise text to read as follows: This standard applies to land-side confined spaces, whether stationary or mobile, underground and aboveground storage tanks, or other dangerous

atmospheres located within the boundaries of a shipyard or ship repair facility. Substantiation: The existing language doen’t make any references to underground or aboveground storage tanks located within the boundaries of a shipyard or ship repair facility. “Land-side confined spaces” are not necessarily understood as underground or aboveground storage tanks. In fact, often times, they are associated with sumps, vaults, cisterns, reservoirs, receptacles, crawlspaces, tunnels, silos, storage bins, pressure vessels, etc…The proposed text will make it unequivocally clear for the users and enhances safety. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee made the following change to this proposal: This standard applies to land-side confined spaces, whether stationary or mobile, underground and aboveground storage tanks, or other hollow structures throughout a shipyard such as tank trucks, railroad tank cars, powerplant fuel tanks, storage tanks, dip and laundry tanks, vaults, tunnels or other spaces that may contain dangerous atmospheres located within the boundaries of a shipyard or ship repair facility. Committee Statement: The Committee combined text from public proposals 306-4 (Log #104),306-19 (Log 96) and 306-105 (Log #99) to provide clear examples of the various landside spaces that may be encountered within the shipyard. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-5 Log #72 Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.4 and A.1.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 1.4* Governmental Regulations. Nothing in this standard shall be construed as superseding existing requirements of any governmental or local authority. The intent of this standard is to assist those using it to meet minimum governmental safety objectives. Attention of owners, repairers, and Marine Chemists is directed to the rules and regulations for tank vessels in 46 CFR 35, “Operations,” and other rules and regulations for vessel inspection of the United States Coast Guard and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards (OSHA) of the United States Department of Labor, which prescribe an inspection prior to making repairs involving hot work and prior to entering spaces where oxygen deficiency can exist. Those standards provide, under the conditions stated therein, for inspection by a Marine Chemist certificated by the National Fire Protection Association or, alternatively, for inspection by certain other persons. A.1.4 All applicable regulations, requirements, and standards should be consulted. Some requirements in this standard may differ from governmental requirements to better protect personnel and property.Substantiation: The word supersede can be construed as misleading, causing confusion on the application of the standard. The standard may in some cases supersede an existing regulation or governmental safety objective but will not result with non compliance with any law or governmental authority. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 1.4* Governmental Regulations. Nothing in this standard shall be construed as superseding existing requirements of any governmental or local authority. The intent of this standard is to assist those using it to meet minimum governmental safety objectives. Attention of owners, repairers, and Marine Chemists is directed to the rules and regulations for tank vessels in 46 CFR 35, “Operations,” and other rules and regulations for vessel inspection of the United States Coast Guard and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards (OSHA) of the United States Department of Labor, in 29 CFR 1915, which prescribe an inspection prior to making repairs involving hot work and prior to entering spaces where oxygen deficiency can exist. Those standards provide, under the conditions stated therein, for inspection by a Marine Chemist certificated by the National Fire Protection Association or, alternatively, for inspection by certain other persons. A.1.4 All applicable regulations, requirements, and standards should be consulted. Some of the requirements in this standard might exceed differ from minimum governmental regulations to better protect personnel and property.Committee Statement: The Committee deleted the second sentence in 1.4 of the proposed text because it did not add anything to the intent of the proposed change. The addition of the changed text in the Annex in A.1.4 identifies that some requirements and recommended practices in the standard might exceed the requirements set forth in governmental regulations. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-6 Log #CP2 Final Action: Accept(Chapter 2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:2.1 General. The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this code and shall be considered part of the requirements of this document.

306-4

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 3062.2 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471. NFPA 312, Standard for Fire protection of Vessels During Construction, Repair, and Lay-Up, 2006 2011 Edition“Rules for the Certification and Recertification of Marine Chemists,” current edition.2.3 Other Publications. 2.3.1 U.S. Government Publications. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1915.7. Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1915.11 Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1915.15 Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 35, “Operations,” Subpart 35.012.3.2 Other Publications.Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Springfield, MA, 2003 2009.2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections NFPA 55, Standard for the Storage, Use, and Handling of Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids, in Portable and Stationary Containers, Cylinders, and Tanks, 2005 2010 edition.Substantiation: To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects the Committee updated extracted material references to other organizations documents. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-7 Log #105 Final Action: Accept(2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Phillip Dovinh, Sound Testing Inc.Recommendation: Please delete the current and replace it with: …NFPA 312, Standard for Five Protection of Vessels During Construction, Conversion, Repair, and Lay-Up, 2006 2011 Edition.Substantiation: 2011 is the current edition of NFPA-312.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptThe changes recommended in this proposal have been incorporated in the Committee’s Proposal 306-6 (Log #CP2). Committee Statement: See 306-6 (Log #CP2) for the Committee’s action regarding update of edition dates of referenced publications in Chapter 2. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-8 Log #61 Final Action: Accept(2.2, 2.4, E.1(a), (b), (c), and F.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Doran, OSG Ship Management,Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: It is proposed that the references noted throughout the NFPA 306 Standard be updated to reflect most recent Edition as follows: Chapter 2.2 - NFPA 312 should be revised to 2011 Edition Chapter 2.4 - NFPA 55 should be revised to 2010 Edition Annex E Tables E.1 (a) (b) and (c) Notes: NFPA 69 should be revised to 2008 Edition Annex F.1.1 NFPA Publications: NFPA 30 should be revised to 2012 Edition. NFPA 69 should be revised to 2008 Edition. NFPA 312 should be revised to 2011 Edition Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials, 1997 Edition should be revised to 2010 Edition Substantiation: Self explanatoryCommittee Meeting Action: AcceptThe changes recommended in this proposal have been incorporated in the Committee’s Proposals 306-6 (Log #CP2) and 306-119 (Log # CP3). Committee Statement: See 306-6 (Log #CP2) for the Committee’s action regarding update of edition dates of referenced publications in Chapter 2. See 306-119 (Log #CP3) for the Committee’s action regarding update of edition dates of referenced publications in Annex F. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-9 Log #62 Final Action: Reject(Chapter 3 Various Definitions)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Doran, OSG Ship Management,Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.1 Adjacent Spaces - Consideration should be given to include “piping systems” within the scope of this definition as follows:.....including all points of contact, piping systems. corners,..... 3.3.19 Toxic - Consideration should be given to adding the words “health hazard” to the definition as follows:.... that has the capacity to create a health hazard or to produce an injury to workers..... 3.3.20.1 Ship - Consideration should be given to simply state that a ship is

“Any vessel that is self-propelled.” 3.3.20.3 Coiled Vessel - Question - should this definition be expanded to also include the use of steam as a heating medium? 3.3.20.4 Tank Vessel- Typo the word “especially” should simply state “specially”. 3.4.2 Hot Work - Consider adding the following language to the last sentence to ensure consistency with 4.3.4, 4.3.8 and 5.2.5 or providing a separate definition for Grinding, etc:.... of a flammable or combustible substance or the atmosphere in adjacent spaces has been inerted as per 4.3.4, 4.3.8 and 5.2.5. It is also recommended that definitions to the following terms / acronyms be added to the list of definitions: 1) Permissible Exposure Levels (PEL) - The concentration of an airborne substance to which an average person can be repeatedly exposed without adverse effects. as defined by OSHA. 2) Threshold Limit Value (TLV) - The concentration of an airborne substance to which an average person can be repeatedly exposed without adverse effects. These values are considered recommendations by ACGIH. are based on accumulated data on the health effects of the various substances and are an expression of scientific opinion. Although compliance to ACGIH Threshold Limit Values (TLV) recommendations is not mandatory, a Marine Chemist has the authority to recommend a TLV if such a value offers a higher degree of protection. TLVs may be expressed in three ways: a. TLV-TWA--Time weighted average, based on an allowable exposure averaged over a normal 8-hour workday or 40- hour work week: b. TLV-STEL--Short-term exposure limit or maximum concentration for a brief specified period of time, depending on a specific chemical (TWA must still be met); and c. TL V-C--Ceiling Exposure Limit or maximum exposure concentration not to be exceeded under any circumstances. (TWA must still be met.) 3) Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) - STEL is a TWA defined over a short time period of 15 minutes. According to ACGIH, it should not be exceeded during any part of a workday, even if the 8-Hour TWA is within its limit.Substantiation: 3.3.1 Adjacent Spaces - This proposal is intended to ensure piping systems connected to a particular enclosed space such as Inert Gas, Vapor or Cargo piping are not over looked when evaluating spaces safe for Workers or Safe for Hot Work. This also helps ensure the term “adjacent spaces” in 4.2.2 is correctly interpteted. 3.3.19 Toxic - This proposal is intended to clarify the fact that a toxic chemical also has the capacity to produce a short or long term health hazard. 3.3.20.1 Ship - Self explanatory. 3.3.20.3 Coiled Vessel - Intended to clarify that steam used as a heating medium are also considered coiled vessels. 3.3.20.4 Tank Vessel- Self explanatory. 3.4.2 Hot Work - There is some confusion with regard to spark producing operations such as grinding, chipping, grit blasting, etc.on tank vessels as NFPA and ISGOTT are not totally consistent with regard to definitions and recommended preparations for conducting this frequently performed task.New definitions are intended to clarify to third parties the difference between OSHA and ACGIH. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: Submitter failed to present a proposal in format required by the Document Proposal Form. Proposed changes should be limited to a single requirement or single subject. Some of the items listed within the submitter’s proposal have been addressed by the Committee in other public proposals. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-10 Log #106 Final Action: Reject(3.3.x Gas-Free (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Phillip Dovinh, Sound Testing Inc.Recommendation: Please incorporate the term “Gas-Free” in 3.3 General Definition to read as follows: “Gas-Free” means the conditions of 4.3.1 “Atmosphere Safe For Workers” have been met or being maintained.Substantiation: The terms “gas-free”, “gas-freed” and “gas-freeing” are not defined in NFPA 306 but they are being used loosely in 1.3, 5.7.1, Annex A.8.1.1(1), Annex D.1 in reference to meeting some or all of the requirements of NFPA 306 4.3.1 and 4.3.4. Because these terms are not defined in NFPA 306, the users are often lost as to their exact meaning. Merriam Webster, 11th Edition does not definitions for these terms either. Currently, the USCG defines “Gas Free” in 46 CFR 30.10-29 as “free from dangerous concentrations of flammable or toxic gases.” Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected the proposal. Committee Statement: Gas-freeing is a process used to make a space safe for entry and/or work. The term is well understood in the industry therefore a definition is not necessary in this standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

306-5

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306Comment on Affirmative: RAFFO, D.: While I agree with the committee’s action, I believe the substantiation could be changed. The term gas free in its various forms is used about six times in 306. It is also used throughout the industry and means many things. The use of the term can indicate a process and can also indicate a condition. It is also defined differently by different industry groups. An attempt to define it tailored to 306 could potentially create additional confusion in the industry. Therefore I agree that it should not be defined in 306, but my reason differs from the committee statement/substantiation. _______________________________________________________________ 306-11 Log #31 Final Action: Reject(3.3.1 Adjacent Spaces)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:Adjacent Spaces. Those spaces in all directions from the subject space, including all points of contact, corners, diagonals, decks, tank tops, and bulkheads, and including areas affected by hot work, where slag, products of combustion, and sparks would be expected to fall or accumulate, but not produce a temperature reaching or exceeding 400°F (204°C) on the opposite side. If the opposite surface temperature reaches or exceeds 400°F (204°C), then the space in question is no longer considered an Adjacent Space but, instead, is now an additional space needing inspection for hot work just like the original, subject space in which the hot work operator is located.Substantiation: 1. The 400°F (204°C) portion of the new hot work definition (2009 revision) most likely came from the USN’s TM that was published in 2006. In their regulation, the numerical temperature requirement is explained in the context of the “opposite surface temperature.” The current text in Section 3.3.1 is lacking this explanation, and confusing: is it referring to the surface temperature where hot work is being administered/applied, or to the temperature on the opposite side? Note 1: In any event, the USN’s guidance in their TM should be followed regarding how the temperature determination is assessed: through “documented processes,” “objective evidence (e.g. mockup testing by the welding engineer, etc.),” or other definitive means to exclude guessing. Note 2: Though this intended correction could be made in the actual definition of Hot Work, the revised wording here in Section 3.3.1 has the added benefit of No. 2 Substantiation. 2. For many years there has been a general misconception by a few in industry that an Adjacent Space is always the next space over, under, or above a subject (e.g. hot work) space. Though this is often true, there are occasions when the next space over, under, or above exceeds the intended meaning of Adjacent Space; such as, for example, when it is being welded on from the opposite side. The added wording will help draw attention to the necessity of having two spaces certified for hot work, not just one (i.e. where the welder is standing) when bulkheads, decks, and overheads are being welded. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected the proposal. Committee Statement: It is the intent of the Committee that the standard will not define an adjacent space solely by the temperature that the space may reach. Using 204o C (400o F) does not address the following issues:a) metal inconsistencies that would affect heat transfer, and b) auto-ignition temperatures of substances that are less than 204o C (400o F).Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Comment on Affirmative: THORNTON, J.: Chemists sometimes use welding engineering data (e.g. mock-ups) occasionally to help determine safety of hot work when affected areas may not be readily accessible or other extenuating circumstances are present. _______________________________________________________________ 306-12 Log #73 Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.1 Adjacent Spaces)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.1 Adjacent Spaces. Those spaces in all directions from subject space, including all points of contact, corners, diagonals, decks, tank tops, and bulkheads. and including This also includes areas affected by hot work, where slag, products of combustion, where sources of ignition from hot work, such as sparks and/or slag would be expected to fall or accumulate. Pipelines are not adjacent spaces and are considered as Not Safe for Hot Work unless noted on the marine chemist certificate.Substantiation: The words products of combustion have been changed to sources or ignition to exclude the chemist from considering a space as adjacent if it is affected by smoke from combustion. The current language also does not specifically define that a pipeline is not an adjacent space. The addition clarifies that pipelines should be considered as Not Safe for Hot Work unless it is specifically addressed on the certificate. It also mirrors the language on the existing certificate. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 3.3.1* Adjacent Spaces. Those spaces in all directions from subject space,

including all points of contact, corners, diagonals, decks, tank tops, and bulkheads including This also includes areas affected by hot work where slag, heat conduction, heat radiation and/or sparks from hot work could fall and/or accumulate and act as a source of ignition. A.3.3.1 Pipelines are not adjacent spaces and are considered as to be “Not Safe for Hot Work” unless noted on the Marine Chemist’s Certificate.Committee Statement: The Committee changed the definition for adjacent space to include areas affected by ignition sources and clarified that a pipeline is considered to be not safe for hot work unless the pipeline has been tested, inspected and noted safe for hot work by the Marine Chemist on the Certificate. The NFPA Manual of Style requires definitions to be in single sentences and not to contain requirements. The sentence concerning pipelines is information that should be placed in Annex A. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-13 Log #92 Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.1 Adjacent Spaces)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael Arnold, Marine Chemist Qualification BoardRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.1 Adjacent Spaces. Those spaces in all directions from subject space, including all points of contact, corners, diagonals, decks, tank tops, and bulkheads, and including areas affected by hot work, where slag, products of combustion acting as sources of ignition, and sparks would be expected to fall or accumulate. Substantiation: “Products of combustion” are substances and components being given off, generated or scattered in an area during hot work. The quantities and types are dependent on the magnitude and intensity of the hot work operation as well as the kind of materials being burned, heated or decomposed. NOT all products of combustion are capable of acting as sources of combustion (e.g. nitrogen (N2), water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), metal oxides, Ozone (O3), particulate matter (soot), welding fumes, smoke, and free radicals.) During hot work, many of these components may rise, fall, scatter or accumulate throughout the vessel making additional spaces unnecessarily considered or classified as “Adjacent Spaces” according to the existing definition. The proposed change brings attention only to products of combustion that are capable of acting as sources of ignition (e.g. embers, sparks, slag, molten materials, arcs, heat, etc.). It makes sense that the accumulation, scattering or spreading of these products into any other spaces would make them “Adjacent Spaces”. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe action that the Committee took in 306-12 (Log #73) addresses the content of this proposal. Committee Statement: The Committee agreed with the proposal in principle to address sources of ignition resulting from hot work when considering adjacent spaces. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-14 Log #90 Final Action: Reject(3.3.5 Combustible Material)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH InternationalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.5* Combustible (Material). Material made of or surfaced with wood, compressed paper, plant fibers, plastics, liquids, or other material that will ignite and burn, whether flameproofed or not, or whether plastered or unplastered. A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will ignite and burn; a material that does not meet the definition of noncombustible or limited-combustible [101].Substantiation: The proposed definition comes from NFPA 101 and from NFPA 5000 and is the preferred NFPA definition for combustible (material). The use of the term flameproofed is deprecated. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected the proposal. Committee Statement: The current definition in the standard is unique to conditions, materials and operations common in shipyard employment. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-15 Log #91 Final Action: Accept(3.3.13 Marine Chemist and A.3.3.13 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH InternationalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.13* Marine Chemist. The holder of a valid Certificate issued by the

306-6

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306National Fire Protection Association in accordance with the “Rules for the Certification and Recertification of Marine Chemists,” establishing the person’s qualifications to determine whether construction, alteration, repair, or ship-breaking of vessels can be undertaken with safety. Activities of a Marine Chemist, as defined in this section, are limited to the inspection and certification procedures described in this standard and consulting services connected therewith.A.3.3.13 Activities of a Marine Chemist, as defined in this standard, are limited to the inspection and certification procedures described in this standard and consulting services connected therewith.Substantiation: The NFPA Manual of Style requires definitions to be in single sentences and not to contain requirements. The second sentence of this definition is information that should be placed in an annex or elsewhere in the standard. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-16 Log #41 Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.14 Marine Chemist’s Certificate (Certificate))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Marine Chemist’s Certificate (Certificate). A written statement document issued by a Marine Chemist... —OR— Marine Chemist’s Certificate (Certificate). A written, statement legal document issued by a Marine Chemist...Substantiation: Statements (standard safety designations, qualifications, etc.) are actually what are written on the Marine Chemist’s Certificate. Further, Annex C contains a sample of a Marine Chemist’s Certificate, a legal document, not a statement. Finally, the referenced (Chapter 2) Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “statement” as “the act of stating in speech, writing, etc.” and “document” as “an official paper, a certificate.” Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee made the following change to the proposed text: 3.3.14 Marine Chemist’s Certificate (Certificate). A written document statement issued by a Marine Chemist on a form authorized by the National Fire Protection Association, stating the conditions that the Marine Chemist found at the time of the inspection. (see annex C for an example).Committee Statement: Committee acted on the proposals in 306-16 (Log #41), 306-17 (Log #74) as a single proposal since the subject matter was similar. See additional explanation in 306-17 (Log #74). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-17 Log #74 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(3.3.14 Marine Chemist’s Certificate (Certificate))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.14 Marine Chemist’s Certificate (Certificate). A written statement issued by a Marine Chemist on a form authorized by the National Fire Protection Association, stating the conditions that the Marine Chemist found at the time of inspection. (see annex C for an example).Substantiation: The mandatory section of 306 does not specifically require that Marine Chemists use a form provided by NFPA. The new wording now requires all Marine Chemists to use a form approved by NFPA in their inspections. This can be either a paper certificate or the new electronic certificate. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartThe Committee modified the proposed text as follows: 3.3.14 Marine Chemist’s Certificate (Certificate). A written document statement issued by a Marine Chemist on a form authorized by the National Fire Protection Association, stating the conditions that the Marine Chemist found at the time of the inspection. (see annex C for an example).Committee Statement: Committee acted on the proposals in 306-16 (Log #41), and 306-17 (Log #74) as a single proposal since the subject matter was similar. The committee preferred the term “document” when referring to the Marine Chemist’s Certificate. The requirement specifies that the only acceptable Marine Chemist’s Certificate form is a form authorized by the NFPA. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-18 Log #58 Final Action: Reject(3.3.19 Subject Space (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 3.3.19* Subject Space. A space affected by work; whether cold work (including entry), hot work, or both.

Note: If this new wording is accepted, the remaining definitions in this section will need to be renumbered. Also note, there is an associated A.3.3.19 proposal that has been submitted. Hence, the asterisk (3.3.19*) here, for this proposal.Substantiation: The term “subject space” is found in both NFPA’s 306 and OSHA’s 1915 definitions of “adjacent spaces.” However, neither has a definition for “subject space.” Understanding of the term “subject space” is necessary to determine whether or not a space is alternatively an “adjacent space.” There are occasions when a space, in physical contact with another space, is not an “adjacent space” but, instead, is a space “subject” to the effects of hot work. Though any space can be either a “subject space” or an “adjacent space,” it cannot be both at the same time. Misunderstandings do not appear to be as great of a problem when, for example, fire and molten metal from cutting an access in one space penetrates into an adjoining space. Most everyone knows that two spaces are affected by hot work in this type of scenario. The same cannot be said for welding operations, for example, conducted against a bulkhead, overhead, or deck, and the adjoining space beside, above, or underneath is “subject” to the affects of heat transfer coming from the opposite side (i.e. the space in which the worker is physically located). One plausible reason is the effects of hot work in this scenario (e.g. blistering paint, “cherry-red” metal) are sometimes not readily apparent. This is especially true when the backside surface in the adjoining space is covered with insulation, cabinets, etc. Thus, the second scenario has a greater potential for an accident, and it appears at least one fire has been attributed to this misunderstanding. Adding the definition will focus attention and promote better understanding of the inferred meaning of the word “subject” (As in, “subject” to what? The effects of nearby cold work or hot work). Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The term subject space is any space that is not an adjacent space. The addition of a definition of subject space doesn’t add any additional clarification to the standard and may create more confusion. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-19 Log #96 Final Action: Reject(3.3.20 Vessel)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental & Marine Services, Inc. / Rep. Marine Chemist Association 306 Committee Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 3.3.20* Vessel. Every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water including special purpose floating structures not primarily designed for or used as a means of transportation on water, or other hollow vessels throughout a shipyard.Substantiation: Since 1994, the scope of 29CFR1915 has included such shipyard hollow vessels other than ships, barges, etc., including tank trucks, railroad tank cars, powerplant fuel tanks, storage tanks, dip and laundry tanks, vaults, tunnels etc. in its scope. The proposed change makes it clear to the reader that these spaces are also included as part of the definition of vessel in this standard. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The change made to the requirement in 1.1.6 of the standard (306-4 (Log #104)) addresses hollow structures that are not part of marine vessels within the shipyard. The Committee chose to keep the term “vessel” reserved for marine vessels as defined in 3.3.20 rather than confuse it with the term hollow structures in 3.3.10 of the standard. The submitter’s intent was incorporated in the Committee’s action in 306-4 (Log #104). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-20 Log #45 Final Action: Reject(3.3.20.2 Barge)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: David J. Capen, Sr., Upper Chesapeake Chemist Co., Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Any vessel not equipped with a stern driven means of self-propulsion.Substantiation: There’s currently being used large barges >100,000 barrel capacity with 2-drive bow thrusters designed to move the barge forward or aft in the mooring to piers or in the event of tug failures. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Bow thruster units are controllable pitch or reversible impeller devices fitted in an athwartship watertight tunnel. Bow thruster units are for lateral movement and positioning rather than forward/aft propulsion of a vessel through the water. No change to the definition in the standard is necessary.

306-7

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Comment on Affirmative: RAKSNIS, R.: Committee statement should include stating that bow thrusters are not considered primary means of propulsion but assist in maneuvering the barge alongside the pier or other vessels. _______________________________________________________________ 306-21 Log #70 Final Action: Reject(3.4.2 Hot Work)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tom D. Littlepage, Gulf Marine Chemists, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.4.2 Hot Work....raises the temperature of the work piece to 204 C (400 F) 212 F (100C)... Substantiation: 400 F approximates the autoignition temperature of diesel (~410F) and exceeds the autoignition temperature of several industrial chemicals. A more modest safety factor seem to be in order. 3.4.2 Hot Work: My problem arises with NFPA 306 defining hot work as exceeding 400F degrees. 400F meets or approaches the auto-ignition of some hydrocarbons, as documented by the attached tables. Coupled with the possibility of inaccurate temperature measurements in an maritime industrial environment, it may be plausible to produce a fire or explosion and still be apparently within the “safe for hot work” parameters described by NFPA-306. Though I wished that the Committee would select an appropriate lower temperature, I would like to suggest 212F (100C), as a lower and more readily determined benchmark with a wider safety factor as a definition of hot work. Reference: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-ignition-temperatures-d_171.html. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected the proposal. Committee Statement: The reference to temperature in the definition of hot work applies to the temperature of the metal or work piece and not the flashpoint of combustible and flammable liquids. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-22 Log #102 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(3.4.2 Hot Work)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental & Marine Services, Inc. / Rep. Marine Chemist Association 306 Committee Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:3.4.2* Hot Work. Any activity involving riveting, welding, burning, the use of powder actuated tools or similar fire producing operations as well as grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, or similar operations not isolated physically from any atmosphere containing more than 10 percent of the lower explosive limit of a flammable or combustible substance any of the following: (A) Riveting, welding, burning, the use of powder actuated tools or similar fire producing operations, or, (B) Any operation that raises the temperature of the work piece to 204°C (400°F), or, (C) The activation of non-explosion proof or non-intrinsically safe electrical equipment in the presence of flammable gases or vapors of flammable liquids when in confined or enclosed spaces, or, (D) Grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, or similar operations in the presence of accumulations of readily combustible materials or flammable or combustible liquids or their vapors.Substantiation: The proposed language increases the scope of hot work for those responsible for seeking and those responsible for issuing hot work permits to include consideration of flammable liquid hazards when used in confined and enclosed space vessel work, hopefully eliminating a repeat of a serious accident that occurred in the standard’s last cycle (Sept 2007) Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartThe Committee revised the proposal as follows: 3.4.2* Hot Work. Any activity involving riveting, welding, burning, the use of powder actuated tools or similar fire producing operations as well as grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, or similar operations not isolated physically from any atmosphere containing more than 10 percent of the lower explosive limit of a flammable or combustible substance any of the following:(A) Riveting, welding, burning, the use of powder actuated tools or similar fire producing operations, or,(B) Any operation that raises the temperature of the work piece to 204°C (400°F), or higher, (C) The activation of non-explosion proof or non-intrinsically safe electrical equipment in the presence of flammable gases or vapors of flammable liquids when in confined or enclosed spaces.(C) (D) Grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, the activation of non-intrinsically or non-explosion-proof equipment or similar operations in the presence of or against accumulations of readily combustible materials or flammable or combustible liquids or their vapors when the atmosphere exceeds 10 percent of the LEL.

Committee Statement: Part (C) of the submitter’s proposal was deleted by the Committee. Addressing the activation of non-explosion proof or non-intrinsically safe electrical equipment as proposed was deemed impractical. A reference to these devices was added to the Committee’s revised Part (C). The Committee also added a reference to atmospheres exceeding 10% LEL in its revised Part (C) to clarify when such operations or use of certain equipment is to be considered hot work. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Comment on Affirmative: RAFFO, D.: I believe that the word “safe” was left out in section C during the committee action. I believe that section C should read: (C) Grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, the activation of non-intrinsically safe or non-explosion-proof equipment or similar operations in the presence of or against accumulations of readily combustible materials or flammable or combustible liquids or their vapors when the atmosphere exceeds 10 percent of the LEL. _______________________________________________________________ 306-23 Log #103 Final Action: Reject(3.4.2 Hot Work)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental & Marine Services, Inc. / Rep. Marine Chemist Association 306 Committee Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:3.4.2* Hot Work. Any activity involving riveting, welding, burning, the use of powder actuated tools or similar fire producing operations as well as grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, or similar operations not isolated physically from any atmosphere containing more than 10 percent of the lower explosive limit of a flammable or combtistible substance.Substantiation: The current language allows considering grinding over rags or paper soaked in diesel fuel at room temperature in the same space, since, although they would take place in the same space, a test of the area might not give a reading of more than 10 percent of the lower explosive limit of a flammable or combustible substance, i.e., the current language is ambiguous regarding readily combustible materials near applied sources of ignition. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected the proposal. Committee Statement: The Committee wanted to keep the reference to operations such as grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting in the definition. The Committee’s revision to the definition of hot work is addressed 306-22 (Log #102). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-24 Log #44 Final Action: Reject(4.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John E. Ramos, Bayonne, NJRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.1 Determination of Conditions: The Marine Chemist shall, whenever possible, physically enter each compartment or space and conduct a visual inspection to the extent necessary to determine the atmosphere or fire hazards that exist. Substantiation: Problem: “To the extent necessary” is very subjective. A 22 year-old Marine Inspector has my bet 99 times out of 100 to be able to get further and into smaller spaces than a 40 year old Marine Chemist. By eliminating to the extent necessary it requires a Marine Chemist to do visual inspections in each compartment and space. So if he/she can’t, another Marine Chemist who can must be brought in to do the job. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected the proposal. Committee Statement: The Committee believes the existing language adequately addresses the requirement for the Marine Chemist to visually inspect spaces. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-25 Log #75 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(4.2.1.1 and A.4.2.1.1 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.2.1.1* The accuracy and sampling integrity of all instruments used by the Marine Chemist shall be verified before each day’s use. by using with a known concentration of test gases in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Calibration of sensors shall be verified using a known concentration of test gas. in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations. A.4.2.1.1 It is recognized that in limited circumstances the marine chemist may not be able to transport compressed calibration gas. In these limited cases the chemist shall make every attempt to verify the accuracy of their instruments

306-8

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306prior to use.Substantiation: Current wording requires a Marine Chemist to use a specific calibration gas even though a different gas may provide a more accurate result when testing for a specific gas. The new wording will permit the Marine Chemist to verify the accuracy of their instruments using a test gas which most closely represents the gasses they will be testing for. The addition of the annex statement allows the chemist to verify their instruments when specific calibration gas is not available. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartRevise text to read as follows: 4.2.1.1* The accuracy and sampling integrity of all instruments used by the Marine Chemist shall be verified before each day’s use. by using with a known concentration of test gases in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations. 4.2.1.2 Calibration of sensors shall be verified using a known concentration of test gas. in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations.4.2.1.2 3 This record of calibration shall be maintained for at least 3 months.A.4.2.1.1 It is recognized that in limited circumstances the marine chemist may not be able to transport compressed calibration gas by air. In these limited cases the chemist shall should make every attempt to verify the accuracy of their instruments prior to use.Committee Statement: The Committee amended the requirement as follows:Renumbered to comply with NFPA Manual of Style In the Annex note the Committee inserted “by air” to specify that air transportation requirements may prohibit the carriage of calibration test gas by the Marine Chemist to job locations and also removed the word, “shall”, since mandatory language can not be used in the Annex. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Explanation of Negative: RAKSNIS, R.: I oppose removal of “in a manner consistent with manufacturer’s recommendations” as I see this as an important step to ensure the calibration and testing of equipment is performed in the right manner. I have concerns that marine chemists may choose an alternate method which may produce a false positive indicating that equipment has been calibrated when it is actually out of calibration. Comment on Affirmative: BLAIZE, L.: A.4.2.1.1 we should look at the committee action to assure that because this is in the annex it will allow for a CMC to “verify the accuracy” if cal gas is not available. RAFFO, D.: During discussion with chemists during the mini seminar the following change was suggested to this section. The word calibration can mean many things and may not include a bump test. To cover this issue the committee should consider the following wording:. 4.2.1.1* The accuracy and sampling integrity of instruments used by the Marine Chemist shall be verified before each day’s use. Verification of sensors accuracy shall be conducted using a known concentration of test gas.Calibration of sensors shall be verified using a known concentration of test gas. _______________________________________________________________ 306-26 Log #76 Final Action: Accept(4.2.1.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.2.1.2 A record of the This record of calibration verification of accuracy or calibration shall be maintained for at least 3 months. Substantiation: This will make this section consistent with the new proposal for section 4.2.1.1 and A.4.2.1.1. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-27 Log #54 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(4.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:4.2.2 The Marine Chemist’s determinations shall include a visual an inspection and tests of the spaces to be certified. and f For repair or alterations involving hot work, all spaces adjacent to hot work cargo tanks, spaces adjacent to cargo tanks, and other adjacent spaces containing or having contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or oils shall be treated in accordance with 4.3.4(4) or 4.3.4(5) as applicable. the Determinations also shall include...Substantiation: 1. “Visual” is one of OSHA’s least-defined terms. For instance, OSHA (subpart B, “Precautions before entry”) has the competent person detecting “toxic” contaminants using a visual test. I don’t think it adds anything to NFPA 306. Also, please note that 4.1 already tells the chemist to enter spaces when possible. 2. The deleted sections are redundant, in that the same material is in 4.3.4. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals: 306-27 (Log #54), 306-28 (Log #55), 30629- (Log #77), 306-30 (Log #95),306-31 (Log #35), 306-32

(Log #38), 306-33 (Log #1), 306-34 (Log #47) and 306-35 (Log #94) since these proposals address the same section within the Standard. See 306- 29(Log #77) for the Committee’s action on this section, 4.2.2. Committee Statement: The Committee did not accept the deletion of “a visual”. Visual inspection is defined in 3.3.21 of the standard. Otherwise the intent of this proposal is addressed in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). The revised text is shown in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-28 Log #55 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:4.2.2 The Marine Chemist’s determinations shall include a visual inspection and tests of the spaces to be certified., and fFor repair or alterations involving hot work, all adjacent spaces cargo tanks, spaces adjacent to cargo tanks, and other adjacent spaces containing of having contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or oils shall be treated in accordance with 4.3.4(4) or (5), as applicable. Note: highlights added for clarification of Statement of Problem and Substantiation (below). Substantiation: The first clause containing “spaces to be certified” implies all spaces, whether for entry (SFW) and/or hot work. The second clause (after the semi-colon, containing three subsections, separated by commas; and further highlighted) is specific for only spaces requiring hot work. “Adjacent spaces” or “spaces adjacent” is mentioned in each subsection. The current wording of the second clause is confusing: A) [“spaces adjacent to cargo tanks” in which cargo tanks could themselves be adjacent spaces to “spaces to be certified;” as well as the redundancy of “all adjacent cargo tanks” and “other adjacent spaces containing... cargo”]. B) The second clause might even be inaccurate [other adjacent spaces” should refer to 4.3.4(5) “All other spaces adjacent...”, not 4.3.4(4)]. C) Since the second clause, third subsection, already refers to 4.3.4(4), that is, is a precedent which is also written better, truncating the entire clause and referencing 4.3.4(5) make everything more clear. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals: 306-27 (Log #54),306-28 (Log #55), 306-29 (Log #77), 306-30 (Log #95), 306-31 (Log #35), 306-32 (Log #38), 306-33 (Log #1), 306-34 (Log #47) and 306-35 (Log #94) since these proposals address the same section within the Standard. See 306-29 (Log #77) for the Committee’s action on this section, 4.2.2. Committee Statement: The intent of this proposal is addressed in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). The revised text is shown in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-29 Log #77 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(4.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.2.2 The Marine Chemist’s determinations shall include a visual inspection and tests of the spaces to be certified; and for repair or alterations involving hot work, all adjacent cargo tanks, spaces adjacent to cargo tanks, and other adjacent spaces containing or having contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or oils spaces are treated in accordance with 4.3.4(4) and 4.3.4(5). The determinations also shall include the following: (1) The three previous cargo loadings (2) Nature and extent of the work (3) Starting time and duration of the work (4) Tests of cargo and vent lines at manifolds and accessible openings associated with the scope of work on or in the compartments concerned (5) Verification that pipelines that could release hazardous materials into spaces that will be certified ATMOSPHERE SAFE FOR WORKERS or SAFE FOR HOT WORK are either disconnected, blanked off, or otherwise blocked by a positive method, or the valves are positioned and tagged in such a manner to prevent, or by written notice restrict, operation (6) Tests of cargo heating coils Substantiation: These changes modify two sets of directions. Wording in the initial paragraph clarifies the intent that all adjacent spaces to hot work must be inspected to meet 4.3.4 (4) and (5). Secondly, only cargo and vent lines associated with the scope of work must be inspected, not all cargo and vent lines. This change is consistent with the new proposal to revise section 4.3.4. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals: 306-27 (Log #54),306-28 (Log #55), 306-29 (Log #77), 306-30 (Log #95), 306-31 (Log #35), 306-32 (Log #38), 306-33 (Log #1), 306-34 (Log #47) and 306-35 (Log #94) since these proposals address the same section within the Standard. See 30629- (Log #77) (below) for the Committee’s action on this section, 4.2.2.

306-9

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 3064.2.2 The Marine Chemist’s determinations shall include a visual inspection and tests of the spaces to be certified; and for repair or alterations involving hot work, all adjacent cargo tanks, spaces adjacent to cargo tanks, and other adjacent spaces containing or having contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or oils spaces are treated in accordance with 4.3.4(4) and 4.3.4(5). The determinations also shall include the following: (1) The three previous cargo loadings (2) Nature and extent of the work (3) Starting time and duration of the work (4) Tests of cargo and vent lines at manifolds and accessible openings associated with the scope of work on or in the compartments concerned (5) Verification that pipelines that could release hazardous materials into spaces that will be certified ATMOSPHERE SAFE FOR WORKERS or SAFE FOR HOT WORK are either disconnected, blanked off, or otherwise blocked by a positive method, or the valves are positioned and tagged in such a manner to prevent, or by written notice restrict, operation (6) Tests of cargo heating coils (7) In spaces which are not cargo tanks or are not adjacent to cargo tanks the Marine Chemist shall carry out tests to determine the atmospheric or fire hazards that may exist within each affected compartment or space, and any adjacent spaces which may be affected by hot work, ensuring compliance with the minimum applicable requirements prior to issuing a Certificate. Committee Statement: The Committee accepted the change to the main part of the requirement 4.2.2. and 4.2.2(4). The Committee deleted “cargo” from 4.2.2(1) since many spaces that are inspected by the Marine Chemist and covered by the Standard are not cargo spaces. This action is consistent with its action on 306-32 (Log #38). The Committee deleted text in 4.2.2(5) consistent with action taken in 306- (Log #1). The Committee added a requirement for spaces that are not cargo tanks (4.2.2(7)). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Comment on Affirmative: BLAIZE, L.: (7) add “as necessary” after “carry out tests” so all combustibles will not have to be tested. RAFFO, D.: The following change in wording is suggested. The current wording may be interpreted as requiring a chemist to carry out a test to determine if a rug can be a fire hazard. The suggested change follows: (7) In spaces which are not cargo tanks or are not adjacent to cargo tanks the Marine Chemist shall carry out tests and/or inspections as necessary to determine the atmospheric or fire hazards that may exist within each affected compartment or space, and any adjacent spaces which may be affected by hot work, ensuring compliance with the minimum applicable requirements prior to issuing a Certificate. _______________________________________________________________ 306-30 Log #95 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(4.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncRecommendation: Delete text as follows: 4.2.2 The Marine Chemist’s determinations shall include a visual inspection and tests of the spaces to be certified, and for repair or alterations involving hot work, all adjacent cargo tanks spaces adjacent to cargo tanks, and other adjacent spaces containing or having contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuel, or oils in accordance with 4.3.4(4). The determinations also shall include... Substantiation: “...and other adjacent spaces” should be deleted because it makes this paragraph unworkable. Chemists commonly certify for hot work engine rooms, passageways, and other structures which have dozens of “adjacent spaces.” So many adjacent spaces are, in fact, impossible to visually inspect or test. “containing or having....fuel or oils...” should be deleted because adjacent cargo tanks, cofferdams and pumprooms should be inspected regardless of what they last contained. “in accordance with 4.3.4(4)” should be deleted because it weakens the whole paragraph, since 4.3.4(4) doesn’t mention spaces adjacent to cargo tanks. The sentence should read simply, “ The Marine Chemist’s determinations shall include a visual inspection and tests of the spaces to be certified, and for repair or alterations involving hot work, all adjacent cargo tanks and spaces adjacent to cargo tanks,Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals:306-27 (Log #54),306-28 (Log #55), 306-29 (Log #77), 306-30 (Log #95), 306-31 (Log #35), 306-32 (Log #38), 306-33 (Log #1), 306-34 (Log #47) and 306-35 (Log #94) since these proposals address the same section within the Standard. See 306-29 (Log #77) for the Committee’s action on this section, 4.2.2. Committee Statement: The intent of this proposal is addressed in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). The revised text is shown in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

_______________________________________________________________ 306-31 Log #35 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.2.2(1))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.2.2 The Marine Chemist’s determinations shall include a visual inspection and tests of the spaces to be certified; and for repair or alterations involving hot work, all adjacent cargo tanks, spaces adjacent to cargo tanks, and other adjacent spaces containing or having contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or oils in accordance with 4.3A(4). The determinations also shall include the following: (1) The three previous cargo loadings or most recent product if the space inspected is not a cargo tank.Substantiation: Adding the suggested wording will require the chemist list the contents of a tank even if it is not a cargo tank being inspected. With the current wording if a chemist is inspecting a fuel tank then the contents are not required to be listed. This will also help to ensure that the necessary tests are carried out during the course of the inspection and an audit. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals: 306-27 (Log #54),306-28 (Log #55), 306-29 (Log #77), 306-30 (Log #95), 306-31 (Log #35), 306-32 (Log #38), 306-33 (Log #1), 306-34 (Log #47) and 306-35 (Log #94) since these proposals address the same section within the Standard. See 306-29 (Log #77) for the Committee’s action on this section, 4.2.2. Committee Statement: The intent of this proposal is addressed in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). The revised text is shown in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-32 Log #38 Final Action: Accept(4.2.2(1))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (1) The three previous cargo loadingsSubstantiation: The Marine Chemist Certificate has a blank area in the upper left corner in which a Marine Chemist is to fill in the “Last Three (3) Loadings.” This proposed change will maintain consistency between NFPA 306 and the Marine Chemist Certificate, and maintain the previous intention behind deleting the word “cargo” from said Certificate. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals: 306-27 (Log #54),306-28 (Log #55), 306-29 (Log #77), 306-30 (Log #95), 306-31 (Log #35), 306-32 (Log #38), 306-33 (Log #1), 306-34 (Log #47) and 306-35 (Log #94) since these proposals address the same section within the Standard. See 306-29 (Log #77) for the Committee’s action on this section, 4.2.2. Committee Statement: The intent of this proposal is addressed in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). The revised text is shown in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-33 Log #1 Final Action: Accept(4.2.2(5))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Suggest deleting section 4.2.2(5) in its present location and including it in sections 4.3.1, 4.3.4 and 4.3.6. and modify the wording as follows: (5) Verification that pipelines that could release hazardous materials into spaces that will be certified ATMOSPHERE SAFE FOR WORKERS or SAFE FOR HOT WORK are either disconnected, blanked off, or otherwise blocked by a positive method, or the valves are positioned and tagged in such a manner to prevent, or by written notice restrict, operation. Substantiation: This inspection is an important part of making a space Safe for Hot Work or Safe for Limited Hot Work or Atmosphere Safe for Workers. It should be included in these sections to make it clear what must be done to any pipelines that may be associated with the space being inspected. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals 306-27 (Log #54),306-28 (Log #55), 306-29 (Log #77), 306-30 (Log #95), 306-31 (Log #35), 306-32 (Log #38), 306-33 (Log #1), 306-34 (Log #47) and 306-35 (Log #94) since these proposals address the same section within the Standard. See 306-29 (Log #77) for the Committee’s action on this section, 4.2.2. Committee Statement: The Committee accepted this proposal. The change is shown in the Committee’s action in 306-29 (Log #77). The revised text is shown in the Committee’s action in 306-29 (Log #77). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

306-10

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306_______________________________________________________________ 306-34 Log #47 Final Action: Reject(4.2.2(6))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: David J. Capen, Sr., Upper Chesapeake Chemist Co., Inc.Recommendation: Delete text to read as follows: (6) Tests of Cargo Heating CoilsSubstantiation: Sub-paragraph (6) is just repeating what is stated in sub-paragraph (5) for verification that pipelines that could release hazardous materials. There is no need to specifically single out cargo heating coils. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals: 306-27 (Log #54),306-28 (Log #55), 306-29 (Log #77), 306-30 (Log #95), 306-31 (Log #35), 306-32 (Log #38), 306-33 (Log #1), 306-34 (Log #47) and 306-35 (Log #94)) since these proposals address the same section within the Standard. See 306-29 (Log #77) for the Committee’s Action on this section, 4.2.2. Committee Statement: Cargo heating coils are not pipelines and therefore a separate consideration of cargo heating coils in the Standard is appropriate and necessary. The revised text is shown in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-35 Log #94 Final Action: Reject(4.2.2(7) (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: James P. Bruff, Atlantic Coast Marine Chemist, LLCRecommendation: Add text to read as follows:(7) The presence of and/or any test results about potential toxic hard (paint) coatings. The customers plan for dealing with such coatings in the event they may have toxic characteristics.Substantiation: As, with other customers responsibilities pertaining to compliance with OSHA regulations in protecting their own employees when performing any type of work that also could change the conditions of a Marine Chemist Certificate, this would seem appropriate for the Marine Chemist to inquire as a standard practice. The Customer does not need a Marine Chemist Certificate to enter the confined / enclosed space for the removal of such coatings. However, if such coating has not been removed at the time of the Marine Chemist Inspection, testing may have determined it to be non toxic. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals: 306-27 (Log #54),306-28 (Log #55), 306-29 (Log #77), 306-30 (Log #95), 306-31 (Log #35), 306-32 (Log #38), 306-33 (Log #1), 306-34 (Log #47) and 306-35 (Log #94)) since these proposals address the same section within the Standard. See 306-29 (Log #77) for the Committee’s action on this section, 4.2.2. Committee Statement: The shipyard’s responsibility under 29 CFR 1915 to address any toxic hazards associated with hard paint coatings. The revised text is shown in the Committee’s Action in 306-29 (Log #77). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-36 Log #2 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: Suggest that the Standard Safety Designations section 4.3 to 4.3.10.2 should be a chapter onto itself and not have the other sections ( 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6) included. Substantiation: The Standard Safety Designations are one of the most important parts of NFPA 306 To make them stand out they should have their own chapter. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee proposed a reorganization of the Standard that includes the creation of a separate chapter for the Standard Safety Designations. See Committee Action on 306-2 (Log #CP9). Committee Statement: The intent of this proposal is addressed in the Committee’s Action in 306-2 (Log #CP9). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-37 Log #3 Final Action: Accept(4.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The following standard safety designations shall be used where applicable in preparing Certificates, cargo tank labels, and other references. Substantiation: This section lists the standard safety designations used to prepare Marine Chemist Certificates only. While the safety designations may be used on other documents, the intention of 306 is for vessels to prepare for

Marine Chemist inspections and issuing a certificate to allow work to safely proceed and the intention should be limited to this area. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-38 Log #63 Final Action: Reject(4.3 and 4.6)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Doran, OSG Ship Management,Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.3 - Insert the following language at the end of this section:..... or for emergency rescue with proper respiratory protection. 4.3.4(4)(5) - It is recommended that section 4.3.4(5) be eliminated and that section 4.3.4(4) be reworded as follows: All spaces adjacent to cargo tanks the space certified “SAFE FOR HOT WORK” have been cleaned sufficiently of residues, scale, or preservative coatings to prevent the spread of fire, or are inerted and treated in accordance with Marine Chemist requirements and acknowledged on the Certificate. 4.3.6 - Consideration should be given to having the word “limitations” noted in large cap letters “LIMITATIONS”. 4.3.10 - This section should be reviewed to ensure it is consistent with the latest edition of NFPA 312 as well as Classification Society and Insurance company guidelines. Consideration should be given to defining requirements for both short term and hard layup. 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 - The word “owner” should be modified to say “owner/operator”. 4.6.2(4) - This section should be relocated after 4.3.2(6) as existing section 4.3.2(6) should also be one of the requirements for maintaining a Certificate. Substantiation: 4.3.3 - Self explanatory 4.3.4(4)(5) - The proposal is intended to consolidate language and clarify that that it is not just spaces adjacent to a “cargo tank” that need to be sufficiently cleaned. 4.3.6 - Self explanatory to emphasize the fact that limitations are noted. 4.3.10 - There have been significant enhancements to layup guidelines within the past couple of years that should be taken into consideration, especially those associated with hard layup (long term). 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 - This is intended to clarify the fact that it is often the vessel operator, not the actual owner that is involved in obtaining a Certificate. 4.6.2(4) - Follows a logical sequence and also includes existing section 4.3.2(6) as a requirement. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected the proposal. Committee Statement: Submitter failed to present proposed in format required by the Document Proposal Form. The proposed changes should be limited to a single requirement or single subject. Some of the items listed in the submitter’s proposal have been addressed by the Committee in other public proposals. The Submitter may submit a comment on this action or action on other subjects covered within this proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-39 Log #32 Final Action: Reject(4.3.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.1.1* If any of the conditions of 4.3.1 (1), (2), (3),or (4) do not exist, then the designation NOT SAFE FOR WORKERS or ENTER WITH RESTRICTIONS shall be used. If the atmosphere of the space is inert and is too small for a person to physically enter, then the NOT SAFE FOR WORKERS designation is not required to be used in conjunction with the INERT designation.A.4.3.4.1. The NOT SAFE FOR WORKERS designation does not have to be used in conjunction with the INERT designation for spaces which are inerted and are too small to physically enter such as skegs, piping, stanchions and similar structures. This does not apply to tanks which are inerted and closed, but large enough to physically enter.Substantiation: Spaces which have been intentionally inerted in accordance with section 4.3.8 and cannot be physically entered by workers do not require the NOT SAFE FOR WORKERS designation be used in conjunction with the INERTED designation. The use of these two designations for spaces which cannot be entered by workers can be confusing and one could infer that the chemist may not have an understanding of the operation when they list a space which cannot be entered as NOT SAFE FOR WORKERS. The intention of this suggestion would only apply to structures such as piping, skegs, keels, stanchions and similar structures. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected the proposal. Committee Statement: The Committee determined that the change as proposed does not enhance worker safety. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

306-11

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306_______________________________________________________________ 306-40 Log #37 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.3.1(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas Beacham, Marine Chemist & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Any toxic chemicals in the atmosphere associated with cargo, fuel, tank coatings, inerting mediums, adjacent spaces, or fumigants are within permissible concentrations exposure limits (PELs) as listed in 29 CFR 1915 at the time of inspection. Substantiation: By specifying the information source for the Marine Chemist to use in testing and determining toxic levels this proposal eliminates the confusion of what is required to comply with the minimal requirements of the standard. This minimum and proposal reflects the actual exposure limits that the maritime community is required by OSHA to meet. Acceptance of this proposal will not negate or prevent the Marine Chemist from using other recommendations of exposure that are not regulations should the customer, other federal agencies or the Marine Chemist feel those recommendations are appropriate at the time of inspection. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAccept the proposal and revise the Annex note for this requirement as follows: A.4.3.1(3) OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit Values (PELs) are found Permissible concentrations can be found in the latest version of Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents, published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, in Subpart Z of 29 CFR 1915.1000,. “Permissible Exposure Limit Value,” or the value listed in the Manufacturers’ Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).In addition to or in the absence of an When determining “permissible concentrations” according to 4.3.1(3), the Marine Chemist should use the lower value of the published ACGIH’s Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) or OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) as the primary source for compliance with this requirement. Only in the absence of a published TLV and PEL for a substance should the Marine Chemist should refer to the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents, published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure Limits (REL’s), or Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) to determine if any alternate value exists. Committee Statement: The Committee agrees with the proposal that the minimum requirement for assessing potential worker exposure to toxic chemicals in the atmosphere associated with cargo, fuel, tank coatings, inerting mediums, or fumigants are the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL’s). However, the Committee believes that is also necessary to provide guidance to the Marine Chemist regarding best practice when making such assessments particularly in the absence of an OSHA PEL or in situations where a PEL may not provide sufficient protection. Therefore the Committee revised the Annex note (A.4.3.1(3)) for this requirement and included that change with its action on this proposal. The revised Annex note directs the Marine Chemist to other reference documents for occupational exposure limits when appropriate. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-41 Log #93 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.3.1(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (3) Any toxic chemicals in the atmosphere associated with cargo, fuel, tank coatings, inerting mediums, adjacent spaces, or fumigants are within permissible concentrations at the time of the inspection. Substantiation: The change I recommend would much simplify the section. Also, the present list of sources of toxic materials excludes common toxic problems. For instance, the Chemist need not consider an ammonia leak because the present text does not include refrigerants. Similarly, the Chemist can ignore excessive weld fume or carbon monoxide because the text excludes them. Also, the mention of “cargo” is a throwback to an age when the standard was understood to apply exclusively to cargo tanks. This paragraph should apply as well to toxic problems in any enclosed workplace, such as an engine room or compressor room. It should read simply, “Toxic chemicals in the atmosphere are within permissible concentrations at the time of the inspection.” Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleSee the Committee’s Action on 306-40 (Log #37). Committee Statement: The requirement does not prohibit the Marine Chemist from testing for any toxic chemical substance in the atmosphere. The Committee determined the reference to cargo, fuel, tank coatings, inerting mediums, adjacent spaces, or fumigants should remain in the requirement. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

_______________________________________________________________ 306-42 Log #78 Final Action: Accept(4.3.1(4))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.1* ATMOSPHERE SAFE FOR WORKERS requires that in the compartment or space so designated the following criteria shall be met at the time the Certificate is issued: (1) *The oxygen content of the atmosphere is at least 19.5 percent and not greater than 22 percent by volume. (2)*The concentration of flammable materials is below 10 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL). (3) *Any toxic chemicals in the atmosphere associated with cargo, fuel, tank coatings, inerting mediums, adjacent spaces, or fumigants are within permissible concentrations at the time of the inspection. Exception: Further testing of toxic materials shall not be required if previous testing indicates that these materials have been eliminated M are not capable of regeneration to hazardous levels while maintained as directed on the Marine Chemist’s Certificate. (4) *The residues or chemicals remaining in a certified space associated with the work authorized by the Certificate are not capable of producing unacceptable chemicals concentrations of toxic materials under existing atmospheric conditions while maintained as directed on the certificate. Substantiation: Current wording is unclear. This clarifies that a chemist is ensuring that any remaining residues have been addressed. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptThe only change to the requirement is in 4.3.1(4) as noted in the proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-43 Log #39 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.3.3(1) (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: (1) the Certificate shall include a statement describing the specific conditions of proper protection equipment, clothing, or time, or any or all of the aforementioned. These areas shall be listed on the Certificate under the heading “restrictions.”Substantiation: Just as in paragraph, 4.3.6 SAFE FOR LIMITED HOT WORK, sub-paragraph. (2) which states “These areas shall be listed on the certificate under the heading “limitations,” paragraph 4.3.3 ENTER WITH RESTRICTIONS suggests there is something unique about a designated space. The respective headings, with words “limitations” and “restrictions,” thus reinforces this uniqueness and, more importantly, prompts workers to read further what the special “limitations” and “restrictions” are, before entering and/or working in a space. In addition, only requiring conditions of PPE, etc. to be “specified,” without mentioning anything about “in writing’ or the Marine Chemist Certificate, and in further consideration of 1915.7(c)(1) in which a Competent Person shall have the “ability to understand and carry out written or oral information or instructions left by a Marine Chemist,” these conditions should not be left to verbal transference. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: (1) The Certificate shall include a statement describing the specific conditions of personal protection equipment, clothing, or time, or any, or all of the aforementioned. These areas shall be listed on the Certificate under the heading “rRestrictions.”Committee Statement: Committee changed “proper protection equipment” to personal protection equipment and capitalized the heading notation to draw emphasis to the restrictions that are mandated by the Marine Chemist on the Certificate. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Comment on Affirmative: RAFFO, D.: The word “or” should be inserted to make it clear that either ppe or clothing or time requirements shall be required. The current wording may lead someone to think that both ppe and clothing is required. Suggested wording follows: (1) The Certificate shall include a statement describing the specific conditions of personal protection equipment or clothing, or time, or any, or all of the aforementioned. These areas shall be listed on the Certificate under the heading “Restrictions.” _______________________________________________________________ 306-44 Log #4 Final Action: Reject(4.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.4 SAFE FOR HOT WORK requires that in the compartment or space so designated, the following criteria shall be met at the time the Certificate is issued:

306-12

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306 (1) *The oxygen content of the atmosphere is not greater than 22 percent by volume. (2)*The concentration of flammable materials in the atmosphere is less than 10 percent of the LEL. (3)* The residues scale, or preservative coatings in the entire space are cleaned sufficiently to prevent the spread of fire and are not capable of producing a higher concentration than permitted by 4.3.4(1) or (2) under existing atmospheric conditions in the presence of hot work and while maintained as directed on the Certificate.; or, in the case of the engine room or fire room bilges, or other machinery spaces, or spaces that have not contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or coils are treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements. (4)* All cargo tanks adjacent to cargo tanks certified “SAFE FOR HOT WORK “have been entirely cleaned sufficiently of residues, scale or preservative coatings to prevent the spread of fire, and meet the requirements of 4.3.4 (1), (2), (3), or are inerted The adjacent cargo tanks can be partially cleaned to prevent the spread of fire from the hot work space in accordance with section 5.1.3 provided the residues or coatings and meet the requirements of 5.1.3.(A). The adjacent spaces partially cleaned shall have hot work limitations listed in accordance with 4.3.6(3)(c) (5) Non-cargo tank spaces adjacent to cargo spaces certified “SAFE FOR HOT WORK” must be treated in accordance with Marine Chemist requirements and acknowledged on the Certificate. (6) Spaces such as passage ways, living spaces or store rooms which are not adjacent to cargo tanks, and are undergoing hot work, must meet the requirements of section 4.3.4 (1) and (2). These spaces along with any adjacent spaces shall be treated in accordance with the Marine Chemists instructions and be free of material which could ignite under conditions of work or be protected with barriers to prevent the spread of fire.Substantiation: This is a new proposal for the definition of Safe for Hot Work. It clarifies the requirement that the space be entirely cleaned unless it meets certain criteria. It also provides additional information on how adjacent spaces must be treated to prevent the spread of fire. This information was not clear in the previous definition. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals 306-44 (Log #4), 306-45 (Log #57), 306-46 (Log #5), 306-47 (Log #52), 306-48 (Log #6), 306-49 (Log #53), 306-50 (Log #79), 306-51 (Log #7) and 306-52 (Log #8) as one proposal since the content of these proposals affect or are intended to affect 4.3.4 Safe For Hot Work. Committee Statement: The Committee addressed parts of this proposal in other items related to this section of the standard. The proposed change to 4.3.4(3) was rejected, consistent with the Committee’s action in 306-46 (Log #5). The proposed change to 4.3.4(4) was rejected, consistent with the Committee’s action in 306-48 (Log #6). The proposed change to 4.3.4(5) was rejected, consistent with the Committee’s action in 306-51 (Log 7). The proposed change to 4.3.4(6) was rejected, consistent with the Committee’s action in 306-52 (Log #8). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-45 Log #57 Final Action: Reject(4.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.4 SPACE SAFE FOR HOT WORKSubstantiation: Since the word “atmosphere” was added to “safe for workers” several revisions ago, it has caused some confusion. When a Chemist inspects a space and writes “Atmosphere Safe for Workers and Safe for Hot Work” a cursory reading implies “Safe for Hot Work” applies to the atmosphere when, in fact the Chemist wants “safe for hot work” to apply to the space. Adding the word “space” to “Safe for Hot Work” is more direct and less ambiguous. In my experience twice shipyard competent people have mistakenly thought that the “safe for hot work” applied to the atmosphere, not directly to the space. Their confusion was entirely understandable. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee combined and acted upon proposal 306-44 (Log #4), 306-45 (Log #57), 306-46 (Log #5), 306-47 (Log #52), 306-48 (Log #6), 306-49 (Log #53), 306-50 (Log #79), 306-51 (Log #7) and 306-52 (Log #8) as one proposal since the content of these proposals affect or are intended to affect 4.3.4 Safe For Hot Work. Committee Statement: Adding the word “space” to the designation does not improve the Standard Safety Designation and furthermore changing the Standard Safety Designation as proposed is contrary to the designation that similarly appears in the OSHA Shipyard Employment Standard in 29 CFR 1915.11 and 29 CFR 1915.14(a). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

_______________________________________________________________ 306-46 Log #5 Final Action: Accept in Part(4.3.4(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The residues scale, or preservative coatings in the entire space are cleaned sufficiently to prevent the spread of fire and are not capable of producing a higher concentration than permitted by 4.3.4(1) or (2) under existing atmospheric conditions in the presence of hot work and while maintained as directed on the Certificate. or, in the case of the engine room or fire room bilges, or other machinery spaces, or spaces that have not contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or coils are treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements.Substantiation: Some confusion has existed on whether this section will permit partial cleaning of a space. The insertion of the word entire clarifies this section informing the user that the entire space must be cleaned. This proposal also removes the last sentence of this section and suggests that it be added as a stand alone section under 4.3.4 and is listed in another proposal. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals 306- (Log #4), 306- (Log #57), 306- (Log #5), 306- (Log #52), 306- (Log #6), 306- (Log #53), 306- (Log #79), 306- (Log #7) and 306- (Log #8) as one proposal since the content of these proposals affect or are intended to affect 4.3.4 Safe For Hot Work. The Committee used the submitter’s proposal for 4.3.4(3) and took the submitter’s deleted material to create a new listed item (7). (3) The residues scale, or preservative coatings in the entire space are cleaned sufficiently to prevent the spread of fire and are not capable of producing a higher concentration than permitted by 4.3.4(1) or (2) under existing atmospheric conditions in the presence of hot work and while maintained as directed on the Certificate. or, in the case of the engine room or fire room bilges, or other machinery spaces, or spaces that have not contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or coils are treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements.(7) The residues scale, or preservative coatings in the entire space are cleaned sufficiently to prevent the spread of fire and are not capable of producing a higher concentration than permitted by 4.3.4(1) or (2) under existing atmospheric conditions in the presence of hot work and while maintained as directed on the Certificate. or, in In the case of the engine room or fire room bilges, or other machinery spaces, or spaces that have not contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or oils are treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements.Committee Statement: The Committee didn’t want to leave the requirement for engine rooms or fire room bilges, machinery spaces or spaces that did not have combustible or flammable materials out of 4.3.4.and created a new list item (7) under 4.3.4. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Comment on Affirmative: BLAIZE, L.: (3) add “soft and greasy” before “preservative coatings” _______________________________________________________________ 306-47 Log #52 Final Action: Reject(4.3.4(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Marine Chemist Assn. / Rep. Sound Testing IncRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.4 SAFE FOR HOT WORK requires that in the compartment or space so designated, the following criteria shall be met at the time the Certificate is issued:... (3)*The residues, scale, or preservative coatings are cleaned sufficiently to prevent the spread of fire and are not capable of producing a higher concentration than permitted by 4.3.4(1) or (2) under existing atmospheric conditions in the presence of hot work and while maintained as directed on the Certificate; or, in the case of the engine room or fire room bilges, or other machinery spaces, or spaces that have not contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or coils are treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements. (3) Combustible materials have been cleaned sufficiently to prevent uncontrolled ignition while maintained as directed on the Certificate.Substantiation: It is difficult to say enough bad things about existing Section 4.3.4(3). But, here goes: 1) “residues, scale, or preservative coatings...” is terminology left over from tank vessel context of the last century. Today the most common shipyard fires come from rags, furnishings, debris or insulation; not from “residues, scale, or preservative coatings.” Why have a list of ignitable materials which excludes the most common and worrisome fire dangers? 2) “...cleaned sufficiently to prevent the spread of fire...” is language from the “adjacent spaces” section and is not strong enough to describe the safety needed in the actual hot work site. We want to prevent not the “spread” of fire, but to prevent any fire at all. 3) “not capable of producing higher concentration than permitted by...in the presence of hot work...” is an unworkable stab at relating fire danger to meter readings. No Chemist tries to test the LEL of anything “in the presence of hot

306-13

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306work.” Moreover, the preceding sentence (Section 4.3.4) expressly demands that our certificate reflect conditions “at the time the certificate is issued”. This is incompatible with “in the presence of hot work,” which is different than at the time of inspection. Thus, current Section 4.3.4(3) language literally demands we foretell the future, which is a certificate of convenience. The point of Section 4.3.4(3) is to prevent fires. But is so difficult to read that the meaning cannot be taught to Competent Persons. Better to directly say “prevent ignition” than to refer to impossible testing for LEL’s “in the presence of hot work.”. 4) “Or in the case of... fire room bilges...” For most Chemists a fire room bilge turns up once or twice a decade. Any more, there aren’t very many steam-driven vessels. Why include “fire room bilges” in our most-used standard designation? And even when there is a boiler, it is probably in a mid-level space and has no “bilge.” In any case, “treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements is redundant because we already have “...while maintained as directed on the Certificate” in the paragraph 5) “Residues, scale, or preservative coatings” is best replaced by: “combustible materials” which is (Section 3.3.5) defined within the Standard. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals 306-44 (Log #4), 306-45 (Log #57), 306-46 (Log #5), 306-47 (Log #52), 306-48 (Log #6), 306-49 (Log #53), 306-50 (Log #79), 306-51 (Log #7) and 306-52 (Log #8) as one proposal since the content of these proposals affect or are intended to affect 4.3.4 Safe For Hot Work. The Committee rejected this Proposal. Committee Statement: The proposal eliminates references to residues, scale and preservative coatings that may be flammable or combustible and is therefore unacceptable to the Committee. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Comment on Affirmative: THORNTON, J.: It should be emphasized that preventing fires is preferable to preventing the spread of fire. _______________________________________________________________ 306-48 Log #6 Final Action: Reject(4.3.4(4))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: All cargo tanks adjacent to cargo tanks certified “SAFE FOR HOT WORK “have been entirely cleaned sufficiently of residues, scale or preservative coatings to prevent the spread of fire, and meet the requirements of 4.3.4 (1), (2), (3), or are inerted The adjacent cargo tanks can be partially cleaned to prevent the spread of fire from the hot work space in accordance with section 5.1.3 provided the residues or coatings meet the requirements of 5.1.3.(A). The adjacent spaces partially cleaned shall have hot work limitations listed in accordance with 4.3.6(3)(c).Substantiation: This proposal will clarify that any space adjacent to cargo tanks certified SFHW must be entirely cleaned unless it meets the requirements of 5.1.3. If the adjacent space meets the requirements of 5.1.3 then it can be partially cleaned and the space certified as SFLHW. If this proposal is accepted then the diagrams in section Annex B must be amended or expanded. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals 306-44 (Log #4), 306-45 (Log #57), 306-46 (Log #5), 306-47 (Log #52), 306-48 (Log #6), 306-49 (Log #53), 306-50 (Log #79), 306-51 (Log #7) and 306-52 (Log #8) as one proposal since the content of these proposals affect or are intended to affect 4.3.4 Safe For Hot Work. Committee Statement: The use of words “entirely” and “partially” in the proposed requirement are conflicting. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-49 Log #53 Final Action: Accept in Part(4.3.4(4))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncRecommendation: All spaces adjacent to cargo tanks to be certified “Safe for Hot Work”, as well as any cargo tank adjacent to a hot work site, have combustible gas readings less than 10% LEL, have been cleaned sufficiently of residues, scale or preservative coatings to prevent the spread of fire, or are have been inerted. Substantiation: Add “to be” because if the spaces are already certified “Safe for Hot Work” the referenced conditions are already in effect and don’t need to be evaluated. (A point of logic.) Add “as well as any cargo tank adjacent to a hot work site” because existing text does not cover cargo tanks unless they are adjacent to hot work in other cargo tanks; cargo tanks adjacent to non-cargo tank hot work sites are not covered by existing text, and by default go to paragraph 4.3.4(5), which allows cargo tanks to be treated “according to the Chemist’s requirements.” Add “have combustible gas readings less than 10% LEL” because this section was inadvertently deleted in the last revision.

Delete “are” and add “have been” to keep the tense consistent. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals 306-44 (Log #4), 306-45 (Log #57), 306-46 (Log #5), 306-47 (Log #52), 306-48 (Log #6), 306-49 (Log #53), 306-50 (Log #79), 306-51 (Log #7) and 306-52 (Log #8) as one proposal since the content of these proposals affect or are intended to affect 4.3.4 Safe For Hot Work. Committee made the following editorial changes deleted, “to be” from the proposal and deleted “are” and added “have been” (4) All spaces adjacent to cargo tanks to be certified “Safe for Hot Work”, as well as any cargo tank adjacent to a hot work site, have combustible gas readings less than 10 percent of the LEL, have been cleaned sufficiently of residues, scale or preservative coatings to prevent the spread of fire, or are have been inerted.Committee Statement: The phrase, “to be”, implies future action which is in conflict with the requirements for certifying spaces Safe for Hot Work. Deleting “are” and inserting “have been” is an editorial change. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-50 Log #79 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.3.4(4) and (5))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.4 SAFE FOR HOT WORK requires that in the compartment or space so designated, the following criteria shall be met at the time the Certificate is issued: (1) *The oxygen content of the atmosphere is not greater than 22 percent by volume. (2)*The concentration of flammable materials in the atmosphere is less than 10 percent of the LEL. (3)*The residues, scale, or preservative coatings are cleaned sufficiently to prevent the spread of fire and are not capable of producing a higher concentration than permitted by 4.3.4(1) or (2) under existing atmospheric conditions in the presence of hot work and while maintained as directed on the Certificate; or, in the case of the engine room or fire room bilges, or other machinery spaces, or spaces that have not contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or coils are treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements. (4)*All spaces adjacent to cargo tanks adjacent to hot work certified “SAFE FOR HOT WORK” have been cleaned sufficiently of residues, scale, or preservative coatings to prevent the spread of fire, and flammable concentrations in the atmosphere are less than 10 percent of the LEL, or are have been inerted. (5) All other non-cargo spaces adjacent to spaces to be certified “SAFE FOR HOT WORK’’ are treated in accordance with Marine Chemist requirements and acknowledged on the Certificate. Substantiation: Currently, it is permissible to permit an adjacent cargo space to be certified for hot work with an LEL reading above 10%. This new wording will not permit hot work if an adjacent space has greater than 10% LEL. Additionally, changes to sections (4) and (5) address spaces adjacent to hot work by separating them into cargo and non-cargo spaces and treating them differently. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee combined and acted upon proposals 306-44 (Log #4), 306-45 (Log #57), 306-46 (Log #5), 306-47 (Log #52), 306-48 (Log #6), 306-49 (Log #53), 306-50 (Log #79), 306-51 (Log #7) and 306-52 (Log #8) as one proposal since the content of these proposals affect or are intended to affect 4.3.4 Safe For Hot Work. Below is the revised text for 4.3.4 from the actions taken on the above proposals: 4.3.4 SAFE FOR HOT WORK requires that in the compartment or space so designated, the following criteria shall be met at the time the Certificate is issued: (1) *The oxygen content of the atmosphere is not greater than 22 percent by volume. (2)*The concentration of flammable materials in the atmosphere is less than 10 percent of the LEL. (3)* The residues scale, or preservative coatings in the entire space are cleaned sufficiently to prevent the spread of fire and are not capable of producing a higher concentration than permitted by 4.3.4(1) or (2) under existing atmospheric conditions in the presence of hot work and while maintained as directed on the Certificate. ; or, in the case of the engine room or fire room bilges, or other machinery spaces, or spaces that have not contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or coils are treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements. ( from 306-46 (Log #5))(4) All spaces adjacent to cargo tanks to be certified “Safe for Hot Work”, as well as any cargo tank adjacent to a hot work site, have combustible gas readings less than 10 percent of the LEL, have been cleaned sufficiently of residues, scale or preservative coatings to prevent the spread of fire, or are have been inerted. (from 306-49 Log #53)).

306-14

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306(5) Non-cargo tank spaces adjacent to cargo spaces certified “SAFE FOR HOT WORK” must be treated in accordance with Marine Chemist requirements and acknowledged on the Certificate. (from 306-51 ( Log #7)).(6) Spaces such as passage ways, living spaces or store rooms which are not adjacent to cargo tanks, and are undergoing hot work, must meet the requirements of section 4.3.4 (1) and (2). These spaces along with any adjacent spaces shall be treated in accordance with the Marine Chemists instructions and be free of material which could ignite under conditions of work or be protected with barriers to prevent the spread of fire. (from 306-52 (Log #8)).(7) In the case of the engine room or fire room bilges, or other machinery spaces, or spaces that have not contained flammable or combustible cargo, fuels, or oils are treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements. (from 306-46 (Log #5)). Committee Statement: The intent of this specific proposal is addressed in the Committee Action in 306-49 (Log #53) and 306-51 (Log #7). The revised requirement based on the Committee’s meeting action on proposals 306-44 (Log #4), 306-45 (Log #57), 306-46 (Log #5), 306-47 (Log #52), 306-48 (Log #6), 306-49 (Log #53), 306-50 (Log #79), 306-51 (Log #7) and 306-52 (Log #8)) is shown above. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-51 Log #7 Final Action: Accept(4.3.4(5))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Add text to read as follows:Non-cargo tank spaces adjacent to cargo spaces certified “SAFE FOR HOT WORK” must be treated in accordance with Marine Chemist requirements and acknowledged on the Certificate.Substantiation: Section 4.3.4(5) is poorly worded. This proposed wording would clarify how non-cargo spaces adjacent to cargo spaces (SFHW) must be treated. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-52 Log #8 Final Action: Accept(4.3.4(6))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Add text to read as follows: Spaces such as passage ways, living spaces or store rooms which are not adjacent to cargo tanks, and are undergoing hot work, must meet the requirements of section 4.3.4 (1) and (2). These spaces along with any adjacent spaces shall be treated in accordance with the Marine Chemists instructions and be free of material which could ignite under conditions of work or be protected with barriers to prevent the spread of fire. Substantiation: This new proposed section outlines how a Marine Chemist must address spaces which are not adjacent to cargo. It clearly states how a Chemist must address hot work in living, storage or miscellaneous areas shipboard. It also requires the chemist to address any adjacent spaces as they deem necessary. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-53 Log #71 Final Action: Accept(4.3.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas T. Govey, Govey Enterprises, LLCRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.5 Not safe for hot work indicates that in, or on, the compartment or space so designated, hot work shall not be permitted. Substantiation: By adding “or on” the designation will be reflective of the potential danger of doing H/W on or against the exterior of the compartment/space. By adding “or space” the designation will become consistent with the other SSDs. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-54 Log #80 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.3.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.5 NOT SAFE FOR HOT WORK indicates that in or on the compartment so designated, hot work shall not be permitted. Substantiation: The addition of the words “or on” makes it clear that when a

space is certified Not Safe for Hot Work that hot work cannot be conducted either on or in the space. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: This proposal is nearly identical to the proposed change in 306-53 (Log #71). The intent of this proposal was addressed by the Committee in its action in 306-53 (Log #71). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-55 Log #66 Final Action: Accept in Part(4.3.6.3(D))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gregory G. Grondin, Downeast Laboratories, Inc,Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 4.3.6.3(D) In compartments/spaces on vessels, that are not considered cargo or fuel spaces and have not contained and are not subject to concentrations of combustible, flammable or toxic liquids, vapors, or gases, the Marine Chemist shall survey the spaces and adjacent spaces in accordance with Section 4.2.2 (revised). The certificate shall include a statement under the heading “limitations” describing the locations and type of Hot Work along any directions for the Competent Person to ensure safe work conditions.Substantiation: Marine Chemists frequently perform inspections in areas not covered by the scope of 306. The employer is utilizing the experience of the chemist to prescribe safe precautions for completing the work. Many of these spaces will contain ordinary combustible materials that are covered by OSHA 29 CFR 1915 Subpart P. Subpart P permits protection of the combustible materials and/or the use of firewatches when combustible materials cannot easily be removed or protected. However, paragraph 5.1.3 of NFPA 306 does not permit the use of firewatches in lieu of cleaning, therefore, the Marine Chemist must mandate that the combustible materials are removed to issue a certificate. Having a client remove a rug, glued to the deck in a berthing space, seems extreme when other protective methods are available. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartRevise text to read as follows: 4.3.6.3(D) In compartments/spaces on vessels, that are not considered cargo or fuel spaces and have not contained and are not subject to concentrations of combustible, flammable or toxic liquids, vapors, or gases, the Marine Chemist shall survey the spaces and adjacent spaces in accordance with Section 4.2.2 (revised). The Certificate shall include a statement under the heading “Limitations” describing the locations and type of Hot Work along with any directions for the Competent Person to ensure safe work conditions.Committee Statement: Committee made editorial changes. Deleted “(revised)” in the first sentence and added “with” in the second sentence. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Comment on Affirmative: RAKSNIS, R.: Suggest add word “materials” after the word “combustible” to be consistent with rest of document. _______________________________________________________________ 306-56 Log #81 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(4.3.6(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.6 SAFE FOR LIMITED HOT WORK indicates that all of the following criteria shall be met at the time the Certificate is issued: (1) Any compartment or space so designated meets the requirements of 4.3.4(1) and 4.3.4(2) (unless inerted in accordance with 4.3.8). (2) The Certificate shall include a statement describing the specific location and type of the hot work. The Marine Chemist shall also be permitted to list any areas to be excluded from hot work. These areas shall be listed on the Certificate under the heading “limitations.” (3) The space meets one of the following conditions: (a) The space or compartment is inerted in accordance with 4.3.8, adjacent spaces shall be treated in accordance with 4.3.4( 4), and the hot work shall be limited to the specific location or locations described in the “limitations” in 4.3.6(2). The marine chemist shall ensure that the atmospheres of adjacent space(s) meet the requirements of sections below in accordance with 4.3.4 (4) or (5), or are inerted. (b) The space or compartment meets the requirements of 4.3.4 (1), (2), (3) and (4); and adjacent spaces meet 4.3.4 (4) or (5) and the hot work shall not be allowed on adjacent spaces or pipelines. or both as applicable; and The hot work limitations restrictions shall be described in the listed under “limitations” in accordance with 4.3.6(2). The marine chemist shall ensure that the atmospheres of adjacent space(s) are maintained below 10%, of the lower explosive level or are inerted. (c) Portions of the space or compartment meet the requirements of 4.3.4(3) and (4) or (5), as well as the applicable portions of 5.1.3, and the hot work shall be limited to the location or locations described in the “limitations” in 4.3.6(2)

306-15

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306Substantiation: Currently, it is permissible to permit an adjacent space to be certified for hot work with an LEL reading above 10%. This new wording will not permit hot work if an adjacent space has greater than 10% LEL. Additionally, the changes it compatible with proposed changes to Safe for Hot Work. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartThe Committee made changes to text in 3a and 3b as shown below: (a) The space or compartment is inerted in accordance with 4.3.8, adjacent spaces shall be treated in accordance with 4.3.4( 4), and the hot work shall be limited to the specific location or locations described in the “limitations” in 4.3.6(2). The marine chemist shall ensure At the time of the inspection the Marine Chemist shall verify that the atmospheres of adjacent space(s) meet the requirements of sections below in accordance with 4.3.4 (4) or (5), or are inerted. (b) The space or compartment meets the requirements of 4.3.4 (1), (2), (3) and (4); and adjacent spaces meet 4.3.4 (4) or (5) and the hot work shall not be allowed on adjacent spaces or pipelines. or both as applicable; and The hot work limitations restrictions shall be described in the listed under “limitations” in accordance with 4.3.6(2). The marine chemist shall ensure that the atmospheres of adjacent space(s) are maintained below 10%, of the lower explosive level concentration of flammable materials in the atmosphere is less than 10 percent of the LEL or are inerted.Committee Statement: In list item 3(a) the Committee deleted, “The Marine Chemist shall ensure”, and added text: “At the time of the inspection the Marine Chemist shall verify”, which better explains when this action is required. In list item 3(b) the Committee deleted, “The marine chemist shall ensure that the atmospheres of adjacent space(s) are maintained below 10%, of the lower explosive level or are inerted.”, and added text, “The Marine Chemist shall ensure that the concentration of flammable materials in the atmosphere is less than 10 percent of the LEL or are inerted.”, so that this requirement is consistent with language in 4.3.4(2) of the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Comment on Affirmative: RAFFO, D.: The committee failed to address section c in its action. While sections a and b were addressed, c was missed and was not included in the substantiation. I believe section c should be included and should read as follows: (c) Portions of the space or compartment meet the requirements of 4.3.4(3) and (4) or (5), as well as the applicable portions of 5.1.3, and the hot work shall be limited to the location or locations described in the “limitations” in 4.3.6(2). _______________________________________________________________ 306-57 Log #42 Final Action: Reject(4.3.6(3)(b))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The space or compartment meets the requirements of 4.3.4(1), (2), (3), and (4); the hot work shall not be allowed on adjacent spaces or pipelines, or both as applicable; but the proposed hot work has a higher degree of potential hazard and must be limited in accordance with Marine Chemist’s requirements; and the hot work limitations shall be described in the limitations” in 4.3.6(2). Substantiation: This wording implies there may be instances in which Hot Work is “allowed on adjacent spaces,” if, for example, condition (a) or (c), instead of (b), has been met (only one of the three conditions is required by this section). Though this should never be the case, there have been several incidents in which Hot Work in a “subject space” (3.3.1) was conducted against decks and, especially, bulkheads. When Hot Work is against a common boundary, both spaces need to be inspected/certified (regardless of where the Hot Work worker is located) and the remaining spaces, around both subject spaces, are then adjacent spaces. Similarly, hot work is never allowed on pipelines unless they are specifically inspected/certified (according to the Marine Chemist Certificate, undesignated pipelines are to be considered “not safe”). In the context of condition (b)’s current working, conditions (a) and (c) imply Hot Work can be conducted on any uninspected/uncertified pipeline as long as the pipeline is physically located within a specific location.” Therefore, there is no added value in retaining the proposed deleted phrase because it 1) causes confusion between subject spaces and adjacent spaces 2) implies Hot Work is acceptable where none has been authorized, and 3) specifically prohibits Hot Work on pipelines, which is often a common application of this designation. Conversely, the inserted wording 1) removes the context promoting the aforementioned confusion and implications, and 2) allows for Hot Work, for example, on a small section of pipeline that has been isolated and cleaned, while the remaining (majority) length of the same pipeline is still contaminated. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected the proposal. Committee Statement: The proposed language is confusing. The standard does not allow hot work in or on adjacent spaces. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

_______________________________________________________________ 306-58 Log #50 Final Action: Accept(4.3.8(1))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.3.8(1) INERTED requires that one of the following procedures shall have been completed in the compartment or space so designated: (1)* Carbon dioxide or other nonflammable gas acceptable to the Marine Chemist shall have been introduced into the space in sufficient volume to maintain the oxygen content of the atmosphere of the enclosed space at or below 6 percent or 50 percent of the amount require to support combustion, whichever is less. Substantiation: Delete “enclosed” space because (5.2.3 All spaces to be inerted shall be sufficiently intact to retain the inerting medium) demands a vapor-tight condition which only exists in confined, not enclosed, spaces. Please note that “enclosed” spaces (29CFR1915, Subpart B) merely have deck, overhead, and bulkhead enclosure...for example, spaces such as pantries, staterooms, passageways, etc. However, “confined spaces” should not be substituted for “enclosed” spaces because “confined spaces” implies possible entry, whereas often the Chemist inerts spaces (rudders, bilge-keels, etc.) which are hollow or inaccessible. Best to simply reference “spaces”. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-59 Log #9 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.3.8(2))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The space has been filled to overflow with water and the water level shall be maintained throughout the intended work. Valves shall be tagged or by written notice positioned to restrict operation to maintain the water level. If any headspace remains in the tank, it shall meet the requirements of 4.3.4(2). Any such procedure shall be approved by the Marine Chemist. Substantiation: The current 4.3.8.2 section instructs you to flood the space but then contradicts itself by allowing hot work below three feet of the surface of the water and permits headspace. This section along with another proposal will clarify the inerting by water practice by splitting it into two sections. One will allow flooding the space and the other will permit hot work 3 feet below the water level. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleChange the proposed text as follows: The space Spaces other than cargo tanks, fuel tanks have has been filled to overflow with water and the water level shall be maintained throughout the intended work. Valves shall be tagged or by written notice positioned to restrict operation to maintain the water level. If any headspace remains in the tank, it shall meet the requirements of 4.3.4(2). Any such procedure shall be approved by the Marine Chemist. Committee Statement: Overflowing cargo tanks or fuel tanks with water may result in a pollution incident. The Committee modified the proposed text to exclude cargo tanks and fuel tanks from the practice of overflowing with water. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Comment on Affirmative: BLAIZE, L.: Add “cargo and fuel” after “space”. RAFFO, D.: I suggest inserting the word “or” into the sentence to make it grammatically correct. Spaces other than cargo tanks or fuel tanks have has been filled to overflow with water and the water level shall be maintained throughout the intended work. Valves shall be tagged or by written notice positioned to restrict operation to maintain the water level. If any headspace remains in the tank, it shall meet the requirements of 4.3.4(2). Any such procedure shall be approved by the Marine Chemist. _______________________________________________________________ 306-60 Log #10 Final Action: Accept(4.3.8(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Add text to read as follows:The space has been filled with water so that the water level is a minimum of 0.9 m (3 feet) above the intended exterior hot work and the atmosphere of the headspace meets the requirements of 4.3.4(2). The water level shall be maintained throughout the intended work by tagging valves in a position to maintain the water level. Any procedure shall be approved by the Marine Chemist. Substantiation: This proposed new section clarifies and separates the two methods of inerting with water, filling to overflow and partial filling with water. It also requires that any valves are positioned and tagged to maintain the water level. The previous method required the valves to be closed and this may not always be the case.

306-16

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-61 Log #11 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.3.8(4))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Add text to read as follows:All valves to the inerted spaces shall be tagged and positioned in such a manner as to prevent or, by written notice, restrict operation. Substantiation: Suggest a new section to the inerted safety designation requiring valves to be tagged or by written notice restricted to prevent changing valve position. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevised the proposed text as follows: All valves, vent lines and other openings to the inerted spaces shall be positioned in such a manner and tagged and positioned in such a manner as to prevent or, by written notice, restrict operation. Add to Annex: A.4.3.8(4) Valves may be opened, closed or blanked as necessary to maintain the inert condition of the space.Committee Statement: The Committee did not want to limit the requirement to just valves and added an annex note to address the valves used to control the inert medium that is used. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-62 Log #33 Final Action: Accept(4.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.4 Preparation of Certificates. When the Marine Chemist is satisfied that the related requirements necessary for the safe conduct of the work have or have not been met, a Certificate shall be prepared in accordance with this standard and in the format of the most recent Certificate of Style published by the Marine Chemist Qualification Board in conjunction with the Marine Chemist Association. The Certificate shall be written legibly. If ink stamps are used, all copies of the Certificate shall be stamped and legible. Substantiation: The Marine Chemist Qualification Board and the Marine Chemist Association have published a recommended format for Marine Chemist Certificates. The benefit of following one format is that employees and competent persons in all areas of the country will see a unified style for Marine Chemist Certificates, which should be universally understandable. When different Chemists work in the same shipyard, having a similar certificate format is a benefit to workers and competent persons understanding of the requirements. Incorporating this requirement into 306 will make this format mandatory for Chemists to follow. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-63 Log #43 Final Action: Reject(4.4.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Limits of detection (LOD) for toxic tests shall be indicated on the Certificate for all test results in which the display or reading is 0, below the lowest division or marking, or otherwise “None Detected.”Substantiation: In Annex A, paragraph A.4.4.1.1 (notice the “A” in this paragraph number, contrasted to the proposed change in para. 4.4.1.1), gives explanatory material on the importance of Limits of Detection and how to record a test result of 0) or otherwise “none detected.” Paragraph 4.4.1.1 (without an “A”; the subject of this proposal) does not make this same distinction between detectable test results (numbers greater than zero, greater than a manufacturer’s published LOD; readings above the lowest division or marking) and undetectable test results (zero, less than a manufacturer’s published LOD; readings below the lowest division or marking). Instead, 4.4.1.1 states “Limits of Detection (LOD) for toxic test results shall be indicated on the Certificate.” The preceding paragraph, 4.4.1, further states that this is to be done “for all spaces tested including adjacent spaces.” When interpreted literally, recording LODs with detectable/recordable test results 1) clutters the Certificate with added text, 2) does not offer any added value (e.g. 52.7 ppm JP-5 with a LOD = 0.3 ppm is still 52.7 ppm), and 3) tends to circumvent the intent and most important point of the Annex to make sure each instrument is capable of detecting toxic concentrations below their established exposure limits. Thus, considering paragraph 4.4.1.1 is the mandatory section of the Standard (not A.4.4.1.1), and further considering A.4.4.1.1 contains good examples of explanatory material, paragraph 4.4.1.1 should be revised as proposed.

Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: The use of the less than symbol (<) is a common practice used by Marine Chemists to display toxicity test results obtained during the quantitative survey and is acceptable to the Committee. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-64 Log #107 Final Action: Reject(4.4.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Phillip Dovinh, Sound Testing Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.4.3* Such qualifications and requirements shall include precautions, including protective equipment and devices, necessary to eliminate or minimize hazards that could be present from protective coatings or residues from cargoes. These qualifications also shall include limitations or restrictions, if any, on the areas where work is to be done. Qualifications may also include references to requirements established in current regulations and standards.Substantiation: This language permits the Marine Chemists to include qualifications as applicable, including references and requirements of established regulations and standards, such as those from OSHA, USCG, US Navy, ANSI, etc. For example, reference topics may include the requirements for paints, coatings, static electicity, lockout/tagout, house-keeping, dust explosion, fall protection, biological or radiological factors, etc… Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: The term, “may”, is unenforceable language. The standard does not prohibit the Marine Chemist from making references to appropriate regulations, the requester’s safety procedures or other documented best practices. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-65 Log #82 Final Action: Accept in Part(4.4.3 and A.4.4.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.4.3* Such qualifications and requirements shall include precautions, including protective equipment and devices, necessary to eliminate or minimize hazards that could be present from common combustibles, protective coatings or residues from cargoes and combustible liquids. These qualifications shall include limitations or restrictions, if any, on the areas where work is to be done and shall be listed on the certificate. A.4.4.3 If there is no additional statement regarding the scope of the work on the Certificate, any hot work or cold work can proceed as indicated by the standard safety designation. If all types of work cannot be conducted safely under a standard safety designation, then the authorized work or prohibited work should be listed on the Certificate.Substantiation: The new wording allows the chemist to address common combustibles and fuel residues. The annex should be dropped due to changes in the standard no longer make this explanation necessary. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartThe Committee modified the proposed text as follows: 4.4.3* Such qualifications and requirements shall include precautions, including protective equipment and devices, necessary to eliminate or minimize hazards that could be present from common combustibles, protective coatings or residues from cargoes and combustible liquids. These qualifications shall include limitations or restrictions, if any, on the areas where work is to be done and shall be listed on the certificate. A.4.4.3 If there is no additional statement regarding the scope of the work on the Certificate, any hot work or cold work can proceed as indicated by the standard safety designation. If all types of work cannot be conducted safely under a standard safety designation, then the authorized work or prohibited work should be listed on the Certificate.Committee Statement: The Committee deleted the word, “common”, since it is unclear what the submitter meant by “common combustibles”. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-66 Log #51 Final Action: Reject(4.6.1(d))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncRecommendation: Delete text to read as follows: 4.6.1(D) Only one requester will be listed on the certificate. The requester is responsible for providing a complete statement of the scope of the work. The requester listed... Substantiation: Present NFPA 306-2009 sentence imposes an unrealistic burden on both the requestor and the Chemist. It is the nature of ship repair projects to be temporary, demand-driven workplaces. When a vessel enters a

306-17

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306shipyard everyone involved realizes that the scope of the work will change as each repair item is dealt with in detail. For instance, when one subcontractor accidentally contaminates a space and cleaners need be called, this changes the scope of a repair job in ways that could not have been predicted. The chemist routinely inquires as to the scope of the work. But everyone knows the answer, like the conditions aboard the vessel, applies only to the time of the inspecton. And that’s why we routinely protect ourselves by forbidding repairs beyond spaces listed on the certificate. Moreover, for certain jobs, such as repairs to a deck cargo barge, from the chemist’s point of view no one cares what the scope of the work is, as the vessel is safe for almost all eventualities. It seems over-reaching for a regulation to demand “total” information when all parties know the info is temporary and limited. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: The standard’s requirement for the requester to provide a complete scope of work to the Marine Chemist is neither unrealistic or over-burdensome. The need for the Certificate requester to communicate the scope of work to the Marine Chemist is essential. The requirement in 4.6.1(D) is consistent with the procedures prior to issuance of a Certificate that are found in 4.2.2 of the standard. Section 4.6.1(D) of the standard is an instruction for the users of the standard to communicate the scope of work as it applies to the spaces that will be the subject of the Marine Chemist’s Certificate. Without this information the Marine Chemist cannot perform his or her tasks related to the preparation of the Certificate. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-67 Log #67 Final Action: Reject(4.6.2(1))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncRecommendation: Delete text as follows: 4.6.2(1) Conditions documented on the Certificate shall be inspected by the shipyard competent person within one day...”Substantiation: Deleted this paragraph because: 1. This paragraph violates OSHA’s “as-often-as-necessary” approach to maintaining the Chemist’s certificate. 2. It is redundant. The same material is covered just below in 4.6.2 (3), where it is related to “in support of work.” 3. Generally, NFPA use of “daily” is harmful because it causes certain regulatory bodies to demand useless SCP inspections on weekends and holidays. The fact that unsafe conditions will be easily detected Monday morning even if the SCP sleeps in on Saturday and Sunday does not seem to occur. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: The requirement in 4.6.2(1) is intended to verify that the conditions found by the Marine Chemist at the time of his or her inspection and survey and issuance of the Certificate have not changed within one day (24 hours). It is essential that a competent person rechecks the spaces that are subject to the Certificate at least once in the first 24 hours that the Certificate is valid. Thereafter maintaining the Certificate is addressed in Section 4.6.2(3) of the Standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-68 Log #28 Final Action: Reject(4.6.2(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Martin H. Finkel, KerikeriRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Unless otherwise stated on the certificate, all spaces documented on the Marine Chemist Certificate shall be reinspected daily, or more often as necessary, by the shipyard competent person in support of work prior to entry or recommencement of work. Substantiation: The deleted phrase “in support of work” is not defined anywhere in NFPA-306 and introduces into an otherwise clear requirement for daily reinspection by the SCP an ambiguity. By deleting this phrase it is clear that to maintain the certificate, a daily SCP reinspection on all spaces must be performed, at a minimum. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee addressed 306-68 (Log #28), 306-69 (Log #97) and 306-70 (Log #83) as a single proposal. The Committee’s action is found in 306-70 (Log #83). Committee Statement: The submitter’s intended change is addressed by the Committee’s Action on 306-70 (Log #83). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

_______________________________________________________________ 306-69 Log #97 Final Action: Reject(4.6.2(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental & Marine Services, Inc. / Rep. Marine Chemist Association 306 Committee Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.6.2(3) * Unless otherwise stated on the Certificate, all spaces including adjacent spaces documented on the Marine Chemist Certificate shall be reinspected daily, or more often as necessary, by the shipyard competent person in support of’ vvork prior to entry or recommencement of work. shall be re-inspected by the shipyard competent person prior to re-entry or re-commencement of work in or on them, and thereafter as often as necessary, to ensure safe conditions stated on the Certificate have been maintained. Substantiation: The proposed language clarifies ambiguous meaning and interpretation of the current language in this section. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee addressed in proposals 306-68 (Log #28), 306-69 (Log #97) and 306-70 (Log #83) as a single proposal. The Committee’s action is found in 306-70 (Log #83). Committee Statement: The submitter’s intended change is addressed by the Committee’s Action on 306-70 (Log #83). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-70 Log #83 Final Action: Accept(4.6.2(3) and A.4.6.2(2) (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.6.2(3)*Unless otherwise stated on the Certificate, all spaces including adjacent spaces documented on the.Marine Chemist Certificate shall be reinspected daily, or more often as necessary, by the shipyard competent person in support of work prior to entry or recommencement of work. 4.6.2(3)* Unless otherwise stated on the Certificate, certified spaces including spaces adjacent to hot work, where work is being done shall be re-inspected daily, or more often as necessary, by the shipyard competent person, prior to entry or external hot work. A.4.6.2(3) The intent of this wording is to clarify that spaces listed on the Marine Chemist Certificate do not need to be tested by the competent person unless work is being done on or in a space. For example, spaces on a certificate do not need to be tested and inspected on a weekend if no work or entry is taking place. However, nothing shall prevent a competent person from testing more frequently than the minimum, Substantiation: The current wording is confusing and this new wording helps clarify when a competent person re-inspection is needed. An addition to the annex provides the intent of the mandatory section. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Explanation of Negative: RAKSNIS, R.: I am concerned that although work may not be done directly on the subject space, other type of work outside the space may affect the integrity of the space in continuing to meet the conditions on the Certificate. For example, an unmarked valve may be opened in a remote space which may impact the piping network in the subject space. Under the proposed changes, the competent person would not have to check the space since no work was actually done or planned to be done in the space. Allowing the competent person to skip a couple days of testing puts at risk that conditions could change without their knowledge putting at risk the entry personnel. Comment on Affirmative: RAFFO, D.: There is an error in the heading which indicates a change to section A.4.6.2(2). The correct section should be A.4.5.2.(3).

_______________________________________________________________ 306-71 Log #30 Final Action: Accept(4.6.2(4))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (6) (4) Certificates not maintained according to the requirements in Sections 4.6.2(1) through (5) shall be void. Note: this renumbering will require Competent Persons maintaining the Marine Chemist Certificate to use a calibrated instrument. Note: this will necessitate the renumbering of current para. (6) as (5), and current para. (5) as (4).Substantiation: 1. From a totally safety perspective, a Competent Person should always use a calibrated instrument. Though Competent Person tests/inspections fall under the domain of OSHA 29CFR1915, NFPA 306 should be able to exercise control over how “its own” Marine Chemist Certificate is maintained, according to its own (NFPA) document. If a Competent Person maintaining a Certificate uses an improperly functioning or calibrated instrument, or no instrument at all, the Certificate should be voided. This is a

306-18

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306dangerous situation. As it is currently written, there are no consequences to encourage a Competent Person use a calibrated instrument. 2. From an editorial perspective, positioning paragraph (4) in the middle of the “4.6.2(1) through (5)” requirement is an example of awkward grammatical construction; an infinite loop (i.e. “(4) Certificates are not maintained according to the requirements in (4),” which states, “(4) Certificates are not maintained...”) Committee Meeting Action: AcceptAs proposed the listed items affected by this proposal shall appear as follows: (4) Certificates not maintained according to the requirements in 4.6.2(1) through (5) shall be void. (5) (4) It is the responsibility of the Certificate requester, vessel owner, or their representative to ensure that the prescribed work is carried out at the original location within the facility for which the Certificate was issued, unless movement is authorized within that facility by the Marine Chemist on the Certificate. If movement is authorized within the facility, a reinspection shall be performed by a competent person. The Marine Chemist shall include on the Certificate the nature of any tests to be performed after the move is complete and prior to beginning work. (6) (5) The calibration of all instruments used by a competent person to maintain a Marine Chemist’s Certificate shall be verified by either the competent person, another qualified individual, or metrology laboratory, before each day’s use by using a known concentration of test gas in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations. A record shall be maintained for at least 3 months. (4) (6) Certificates not maintained according to the requirements in 4.6.2(1) through (5) shall be void.Committee Statement: Committee Statement: in accepting this proposal the Committee has shown the affected listed items under the requirement. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-72 Log #12 Final Action: Reject(Chapter 5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Preparing Tank Vessels for Issuance of a Marine Chemist’s Certificate Involving Hot Work. Substantiation: There has been confusion on whether this section only applies to tank vessels or to all vessels. Section 6.2 and 6.3 (all) refer you back to specific sections of Chapter 5 but do the other sections of chapter 5 apply to these vessels? Adding the word Tank will clarify that this chapter only fully applies to tank vessels. If this is not the case and this section applies to all vessels then sections 6.2 and 6.3 should be removed or clarified. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Committee did not want to limit this chapter to only tank vessels. There are requirements in this chapter that are applicable to other vessel types such as offshore supply vessels that also carry bulk liquid cargo (e. g. methanol). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-73 Log #101 Final Action: Accept(Chapter 5, Title)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental & Marine Services, Inc. / Rep. Marine Chemist Association 306 Committee Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:Chapter 5 Preparing Vessels by the Vessel Owner, Operator or Repairer for Issuance of a Marine Chemist’s Certificate Involving Hot WorkSubstantiation: This proposed change will clarify the separation of responsibilities of vessel preparation by the vessel owner, operator or repairer from the conditions inspected for by the Marine Chemist needed for approval of the commencement of hot work. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-74 Log #49 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1 Where a Safe Condition Is to Be Obtained Entirely by Cleaning (See Figure B.1, part (b).)Substantiation: Since figure B.1 explicitly refers to a tank vessel, referring to it for this section means that all non-tank vessels are funnelled into “Vessels Other Than Tank Vessels” and thus written outside the rules for partial cleaning (such as the minimum 180°F flash point, or the absence of free-flowing liquids.) They are no longer subject to objective processes and rules, but (Paragraph 6.2) are left “as directed by the Marine Chemist.” Therefore, it is better in this section not to refer to the tank-ship drawing. Perhaps the

Committee should design a sketch which does not refer explicitly to tank vessels. The existing figure is left over from a time when tank vessels were the overwhelming focus of the standard, and that is no longer the case. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee’s Action on 306-113 (Log #CP4) addresses the intent of this proposal. Committee Statement: The Committee added an Annex A note to sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.8 to advise users of the Standard that the requirements in Chapter 5 can be used for spaces other than cargo tanks such as fuel tanks, landside spaces and hollow structures as covered by the Standard as appropriate. See the Committee’s Action on 306-113 (Log #CP4). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-75 Log #CP6 Final Action: Accept(5.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:5.1.1 All cargo pumps, cargo lines, inert gas lines, crude oil wash lines, piped cargo fire-extinguishing lines, vapor control and recovery lines and vent lines to the spaces involved in the scope of work shall have been flushed with water, blown with air or inerted. Substantiation: The proposed change limits the requirement to piping systems for the subject space that are within the scope of the work. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-76 Log #48 Final Action: Reject(5.1.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.1.2 Compartments concerned shall be cleaned so that the atmosphere in all cargo compartments and adjacent spaces, including those diagonally adjacent to the cargo compartments, is in accordance with 4.3.1, 4.3.4, or 4.3.6, or with both 4.3.1 and 4.3.4, or with both 4.3.1 and 4.3.6, as applicable.Substantiation: 4.3.1 is “Atmosphere Safe for Workers.” But because the title of section 5.1.2 refers to a “Chemist’s Certificate Involving Hot Work”, the paragraphs relating to Atmosphere Safe for Workers are out of place. Spaces, especially adjacent spaces, may have been cleaned and be perfectly safe for a hot work operation, even though they contain, for instance, oxygen at 18%, or diesel at 50ppm, both of which would violate any reference to 4.3.1. In fact, any unventilated adjacent diesel tank, even though cleaned, would probably violate any 4.3.1 reference. If an adjacent space need be entered, 4.3.1 may be separately applied; but its safety as a space adjacent to hot work should not be tied up with a few ppm contaminant or a slight oxygen deficiency. Also, please note there is no 4.3.1 requirement for the hot work space itself. Why impose it on all the adjacent spaces? Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: In order for the the Marine Chemist and then subsequently the competent person to enter the subject space and adjacent spaces the atmosphere of those spaces must meet the requirements of 4.3.1 of the Standard. An exception would be adjacent spaces that are inerted or are tanks pressed up with ballast water or fuel as permitted by the Standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-77 Log #13 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(5.1.3(C))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Add text to read as follows:Spaces adjacent to spaces cleaned to meet 5.1.3 (A) and (B) shall be permitted to be cleaned to meet the requirements of 5.1.3(A) and (B) provided the residues or preservative coatings meet the requirements of 5.1.3(A).Substantiation: This addition will permit spaces adjacent to partially cleaned spaces to meet the same requirement. This would apply if the work is on the common bulkhead. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartRevised by the Committee as follows: Spaces adjacent to spaces When subject spaces are cleaned to meet 5.1.3(A) and 5.1.3(B) then, adjacent spaces shall be permitted to be cleaned to meet the requirements of 5.1.3(A) and (B) provided the residues or preservative coatings meet the requirements of 5.1.3(A). Committee Statement: The Committee made editorial changes to the proposal to make it clear that the requirement applies to subject spaces and adjacent spaces.

306-19

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-78 Log #14 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.2.2.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.2.2.1 All valves to the inerted spaces shall be tagged and positioned in such a manner as to prevent or, by written notice, restrict opening or operation.Substantiation: Valves are not always required to be closed during an inerting process and this will allow them to be tagged out in any position. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee modified the proposed text as follows: 5.2.2.1 All valves to the inerted spaces shall be positioned in such a manner and tagged and positioned in such a manner as to prevent or, by written notice, restrict opening or operation.Committee Statement: The Committee switched position of positioned and tagged requirement since it is logical that the valves would be positioned before being tagged. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-79 Log #64 Final Action: Reject(5.2.2.1, 5.3.2.1, and 5.4.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Doran, OSG Ship Management,Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 5.2.2.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.4.1.1 Requires “All valves to the inerted spaces shall be tagged and secured.... “, It is recommended to add another section as follows: Any valve connecting the approved space to a common header to other spaces that have not been certified SAFE FOR WORKERS and/or SAFE FOR HOT WORK, such as a vapor return line or inert gas line, shall be tagged and secured in such a manner as to prevent or, by written notice. restrict opening or operation. Furthermore. the inert gas generator shall be tagged and secured in the same manner to prevent inadvertent operation of the inert gas generator.Substantiation: There is no mention of isolating the space that has been deemed safe from the common vapor header or IG line. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: The Committee made a change to 5.2.2.1 that addresses valves to inerted spaces in its action on 306-78 (Log #14). 5.3.2..1 does not involve inerting spaces and therefore should be deleted - See the Committee’s action on 306-84 (Log #17). The Committee created an Annex A note for 5.4.1.1 which states the valves to the inerted compartments referenced in the requirement do not include those valves that are part of a fixed inert gas system used to in controlling the introduction of the inerting medium into the subject space. See the Committee’s Action on 306-114 (Log #CP5). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-80 Log #56 Final Action: Reject(5.2.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Don Sly, Sound Testing IncRecommendation: Delete text as follows: 5.2.2.2 All vent lines (unless they are inerted) shall be inspected to ensure they are free of gas, vapor, and product.Substantiation: This paragraph is superfluous. The vent lines have already “been flushed with water, blown with steam or air, or inerted,” according to paragraph 5.2.2 above. (5.2.2 itself is a burdensome requirement with questionable application to isolated, minor repairs on tank vessels.) Also, the terms “gas” and “vapor” are redundant, and only visual inspections will detect “product.” It is extremely unlikely that a chemist would perform visual inspections of “all vent lines” before allowing workers to, say, repair a fracture in a tank barge’s forward rake. It seems this 5.2.2.2 has so many deficiencies that it is best deleted. These same comments apply to 5.3.2.2, the language of which is identical to 5.2.2.2.Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected the proposal. Committee Statement: The proposed change goes against common practice. Vent lines on tank vessels such as those associated with fixed inert gas systems and vapor recovery systems may contain vapor and/or product and therefore need to be inspected by the Marine Chemist as appropriate and consistent with the scope of work. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

_______________________________________________________________ 306-81 Log #15 Final Action: Accept(5.2.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Compartments of spaces on which external repairs or alterations are to be undertaken on the external boundaries (deck or shell) shall be permitted to be inerted by gas instead of being cleaned as described in...Substantiation: This section appears to prohibit the use of water as an inerting medium in accordance with section 4.3.8. Water is a permitted inerting medium in accordance with 4.3.8. Removal of the words by gas will allow all inerting practices. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-82 Log #84 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.3.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.3.2 All Cargo pumps and cargo lines, inert gas lines, and crude oil wash lines to the spaces involved in the scope of work shall have been flushed with water, blown with steam or air, or inerted. Substantiation: Current wording requires all lines on the vessel to be cleaned/inerted. This is not necessary for limited work. This additional wording corrects this issue. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee modified the proposed text as follows: 5.3.2 All Cargo pumps and cargo lines, inert gas lines, and crude oil wash lines to the spaces involved in the scope of work shall have been flushed with water, or blown with steam or air, or inerted.Committee Statement: The Committee also deleted references to the inert gas system since this section does not apply to inerting tanks. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-83 Log #16 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.3.2.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.3.2.1 All valves to the inerted spaces shall be tagged and positioned in such a manner as to prevent or, by written notice, restrict opening or operation.Substantiation: Section 5.3.2.1 is under the 5.3 heading for obtaining a safe condition by cleaning and securing. This section does not detail inerting and the inerting description should be deleted as described in another proposal. However, if the committee chooses to keep this section it should be re-worded. Requiring valves to be closed may not be appropriate in all cases; the new wording allows valves to be tagged in any position. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee modified the proposed text as follows: 5.2.2.1 All valves to the inerted spaces shall be positioned in such a manner and tagged and positioned in such a manner as to prevent or, by written notice, restrict opening or operation.Committee Statement: The Committee switched position of positioned and tagged requirement since it is logical that the valves would be positioned before being tagged. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

_______________________________________________________________ 306-84 Log #17 Final Action: Accept(5.3.2.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Delete the following text: 5.2.2.1 All valves to the inerted spaces shall be tagged and secured in such a manner as to prevent or, by written notice, restrict opening or operation.Substantiation: Section 5.3.2.1 is under the 5.3 heading for obtaining a safe condition by cleaning and securing. This section does not detail inerting and the inerting description should be deleted. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

306-20

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306_______________________________________________________________ 306-85 Log #85 Final Action: Accept in Part(5.3.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.3.2.2 All Vent lines (unless they are inerted) to the spaces involved in the scope of work shall be inspected to ensure they are free of gas, vapor, and product. Substantiation: Current wording requires all lines on the vessel to be cleaned/inerted. This is not necessary for limited work. This additional wording corrects this issue. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartThe Committee modified the text as follows: 5.3.2.2 All Vent lines unless they are (inerted) to the spaces involved in the scope of work shall be inspected to ensure they are free of gas, vapor, and product. Committee Statement: The Committee made an editorial change to the proposed text by removing the parentheses. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-86 Log #86 Final Action: Accept(5.4.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.4.1 All Cargo pumps and cargo lines, inert gas lines, and crude oil wash lines to the spaces involved in the scope of work shall have been flushed with water, blown with steam or air, or inerted. Substantiation: Current wording requires all lines on the vessel to be cleaned/inerted. This is not necessary for limited work. This new wording corrects this issue. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-87 Log #87 Final Action: Accept(5.4.1.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.4.1.2 All Vent lines (unless they are inerted) to the spaces involved in the scope of work shall be inspected to ensure they are free of gas, vapor, and product. Substantiation: Current wording requires all lines on the vessel to be cleaned/inerted. This is not necessary for limited work. This new wording corrects this issue. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-88 Log #18 Final Action: Reject(5.8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.8 Vessel Fuel Oil Tanks. No hot work shall be permitted within 25 feet any vessel’s fuel oil tanks whose contents have a flashpoint of less than 150°F unless the work has been authorized by the Marine Chemist. Substantiation: This change reflects the OSHA requirement under 29CFR Section 1915.14(iv). If adjacent hot work does not meet this requirement a competent person may approve it. The new wording clarifies this requirement. This is also a requirement under USGC regulations. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: The Committee decided that this issue is better addressed as an Annex A note. The content of this proposal is better addressed in 306-89 (Log #88) which was authored by the same submitter. See the Committee’s action on 306-89 (Log #88). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-89 Log #88 Final Action: Accept(5.8 and A.5.8 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.8* Vessel Fuel Oil Tanks. No hot work shall be permitted immediately adjacent to any vessel’s fuel oil tanks unless the work has been authorized by the Marine Chemist.

A.5.8 Vessel or other Fuel Oil Tanks. On dry cargo vessels, miscellaneous vessels, passenger vessels, and shipyard employment land-side operations no hot work shall be permitted adjacent to any vessel’s or other fuel oil tanks unless the work has been authorized by the Marine Chemist. When the adjacent space contains flammable or combustible liquids with a flash point at or below 150 degrees-Fahrenheit, or flammable gasses and the distance between such spaces and the hot work is greater than 25 feet, then a competent person can visually inspect and test the space (if the hot work is 25 feet or closer to the adjacent space containing such flammables, then a Marine Chemist must certify the hot work.)Substantiation: Adding information in the annex clarifies the intention of this statement. The annex wording is a direct quote from the OSHA compliance directive. (CPL-02-01-051) with clarification. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.Explanation of Negative: BLAIZE, L.: 5.8 leave out “immediately”. It is either adjacent or not. Trying to define immediately as some nebulous distance would be confusing. A.5.8 leave out totally. We have referenced OSHA 1915 in the text and there is no need to single out this part for special attention in the annex. It was poorly written by OSHA and has been misunderstood and misapplied by industry ever since. _______________________________________________________________ 306-90 Log #19 Final Action: Accept in Part(6.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.2 Vessels Other Than Tank Vessels. On any vessels that have carried flammable or combustible liquid in bulk as fuel or cargo, or that have carried cargoes that can produce hazardous atmospheres (including, but not limited to, those caused by decomposition or reaction with oxygen from the atmosphere), no repairs involving hot work shall be made in or on the external boundaries (shell, tank top, or deck) of cargo tanks, fuel tanks, oil pipelines, heating coils or hollow structures, and machinery spaces, unless such compartments and pipelines, as deemed necessary by the Marine Chemist, have been inerted or cleaned to meet the appropriate designation requirements of 4.3.4, or 4.3.6 or 4.3.8 and for spaces that will be entered 4.3.1. Repairs and alterations shall not be undertaken until a Certificate is obtained. Substantiation: If a vessel carries a flammable or combustible liquid in bulk as cargo it would be a tank vessel and this section would not apply. (suggestion is to delete, or cargo) Additionally, it should be permitted that a space can meet the requirements of 4.3.6 to safely carry out hot work. Also, if a space must be entered it must meet the requirements of 4.3.1. With the current wording it would appear to allow entry with an oxygen concentration at any level below 22 percent. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartRevise text to read as follows: 6.2 Vessels Other Than Tank Vessels. On any vessels that have carried flammable or combustible liquid in bulk as fuel or cargo, or that have carried cargoes that can produce hazardous atmospheres (including, but not limited to, those caused by decomposition or reaction with oxygen from the atmosphere), no repairs involving hot work shall be made in or on the external boundaries (shell, tank top, or deck) of cargo tanks, fuel tanks, oil pipelines, heating coils or hollow structures, and machinery spaces, unless such compartments and pipelines, as deemed necessary by the Marine Chemist, have been inerted or cleaned to meet the appropriate designation requirements of 4.3.4, or 4.3.6 or 4.3.8 and for spaces that will be entered 4.3.1. Repairs and alterations shall not be undertaken until a Certificate is obtained. Committee Statement: There are vessels such as offshore supply vessels that carry combustible and flammable liquids in bulk as cargo not fuel and these vessels are not tank vessels therefore the Committee left the reference to cargo in the requirement. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-91 Log #20 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(6.3.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:6.3.2 All ammunition shall be removed from any space requiring hot work. Adjacent spaces containing ammunition shall be treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements. Adjacent spaces containing flammable or combustible liquids shall be treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s directions. Substantiation: If you are doing hot work in a passage way 15 feet from a fuel tank, the existing paragraph requires the fuel tank be cleaned and made Safe for Hot Work. This proposal would allow it to be treated in accordance with the Chemist’s instructions.

306-21

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartThe Committee modified the text as follows: 6.3.2 All ammunition shall be removed from any space requiring hot work. Adjacent spaces containing ammunition shall be treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements. Adjacent spaces containing flammable or combustible liquids shall be treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s directions requirements and acknowledged on the Certificate. Committee Statement: The Committee deleted “directions” and replaced it with text that is consistent with the requirement in 4.3.4(5) of the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-92 Log #21 Final Action: Reject(6.3.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:6.3.2 All ammunition shall be removed from any space requiring hot work. Adjacent spaces containing ammunition shall be treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements. Adjacent spaces containing flammable or combustible liquids shall be treated in accordance with 4.3.4 or secured. Substantiation: If you are doing hot work in a passage way 15 feet from a fuel tank, this paragraph requires the fuel tank be cleaned and made Safe for Hot Work. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: The Committee’s action on a similar proposal from the same submitter for this requirement make this proposal obsolete. See the Committee’s Action on 306-91 (Log #20). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-93 Log #22 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(6.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.3.4 All tanks, confined spaces, and machinery compartments in which internal repairs or alterations are to be undertaken shall be cleaned to comply with the requirements of either 4.3.1 or 4.3.3. For repair or alteration involving hot work, these spaces shall meet the requirements of 4.3.4 or 4.3.6 or 5.1.3 and adjacent compartments shall be cleaned to meet the requirements of 4.3.4 or 4.3.6 or 5.1.3 or shall be permitted to be inerted to meet the requirements of 4.3.8. The adjacent spaces may also be permitted to be secured in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s instructions. Exception: Spaces covered by 5.1.3, Section 5.8, and 6.3.3.Substantiation: Current wording requires an adjacent space to be cleaner than the hot work space, by adding 4.3.6 it permits the same safety designation as the hot work space. Also, the sentence added permits adjacent spaces to be secured. In cases where hot work is done in an engine room with adjacent fuel tanks the tanks can be secured and not cleaned. With this inclusion the exception is no longer necessary. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartThe Committee modified the text as follows: 6.3.4 All tanks, confined spaces, and machinery compartments in which internal repairs or alterations are to be undertaken shall be cleaned to comply with the requirements of either 4.3.1 or 4.3.3. For repair or alteration involving hot work, these spaces shall meet the requirements of 4.3.4 or 4.3.6 or 5.1.3 and adjacent compartments shall be cleaned to meet the requirements of 4.3.4 or 4.3.6 or 5.1.3 or shall be permitted to be inerted to meet the requirements of 4.3.8. The adjacent spaces may shall also be permitted to be secured in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s instructions. requirements and acknowledged on the Certificate.Exception: Spaces covered by 5.1.3, Section 5.8, and 6.3.3.Committee Statement: The Marine Chemist needs to include a statement concerning the requirements for securing the adjacent space on the Certificate. The Committee included language consistent with 4.3.4(5) of the Standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-94 Log #23 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(6.3.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.3.5 All tanks, confined spaces, and machinery compartments in which external repairs or alterations are to be undertaken shall be either cleaned to comply with the requirements of 4.3.4 or 4.3.6, or shall be inerted to comply with the requirements of 4.3.8. All adjacent compartments shall be cleaned to meet the requirements of 4.3.4 or 4.3.6 or 5.1.3 or shall be permitted to be inerted to meet the requirements of 4.3.8. The adjacent spaces may also be permitted to be secured in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s instructions.

Exception: Spaces covered by 5.1.3, Section 5.8, and 6.3.3.Substantiation: Current wording requires an adjacent space to be cleaner than the hot work space, by adding 4.3.6 it permits the same safety designation as the hot work space. Also, the sentence added permits adjacent spaces to be secured when cleaning in not necessary. Also, with this wording the exception is no longer needed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartThe Committee modified the text as follows: 6.3.5 All tanks, confined spaces, and machinery compartments in which external repairs or alterations are to be undertaken shall be either cleaned to comply with the requirements of 4.3.4 or 4.3.6, or shall be inerted to comply with the requirements of 4.3.8. All adjacent compartments shall be cleaned to meet the requirements of 4.3.4 or 4.3.6 or 5.1.3 or shall be permitted to be inerted to meet the requirements of 4.3.8. The adjacent spaces may shall also be permitted to be secured in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s instructions. requirements and acknowledged on the Certificate.Exception: Spaces covered by 5.1.3, Section 5.8, and 6.3.3.Committee Statement: The Marine Chemist needs to include a statement concerning the requirements for securing the adjacent space on the Certificate. The Committee included language consistent with 4.3.4(5) of the Standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-95 Log #65 Final Action: Accept(6.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Doran, OSG Ship Management,Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.4 - A tank ship vessel in lay-up shall be treated in accordance with Section 6.1 and NFPA 312 Standard for Fire Protection of Vessels During Construction, Conversion, Repair and Lay-up.Substantiation: Intended to ensure consistency with definition 3.3.20.4 and hazards associated with all tank vessels in lay-up, not just tank ships. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-96 Log #CP7 Final Action: Accept(Chapter 7)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, Recommendation: Delete the entire Chapter 7, Additional Requirements for Bulk Chemical Cargo Tanks, except the second sentence of 7.3.2 which is moved to Chapter 5 (see 306- (Log #CP8)); and hold Chapter 7 as a “reserved” in the standard for future use except, if 306- (Log #CP9) is approved, then Chapter 7 will become a new chapter for Standard Safety Designations. Substantiation: Chapter 7 provides no unique requirements for tank vessels that carry chemicals in bulk and unnecessary except for the requirement in 7.3.2 which is proposed to be moved to Chapter 5. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-97 Log #24 Final Action: Reject(7.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.1.1 This section describes the conditions required before repairs can be made in spaces that have carried or have been exposed to chemicals in bulk. The remaining spaces in the vessel shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 6. This section does not apply to petroleum products such as diesel, lubricating, bunker or crude oil. Substantiation: The 306 definition of chemical would include many petroleum products which have a toxicity level. This would clarify that this section does not apply to these products carried as cargo. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: It is the opinion of the Committee that Chapter 7 of the standard has no unique requirements for chemical tank ships. The Committee therefore created a proposal to delete the Chapter. See the Committee’s Action on 306-96 (Log #CP7). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

306-22

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306_______________________________________________________________ 306-98 Log #25 Final Action: Reject(7.2.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Delete the following text: 7.2.3 Results of any chemical hazard tests shall be permitted to be noted on the Certificate.Substantiation: This section is not needed. Any test result or cautions can be placed on the certificate in accordance with section 4.4.1. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: It is the opinion of the Committee that Chapter 7 of the standard has no unique requirements for chemical tank ships. The Committee therefore created a proposal to delete the Chapter. See the Committee’s Action on 306-96 (Log #CP7). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-99 Log #CP8 Final Action: Accept(7.3.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, Recommendation: Move the text from 7.3.2 to Chapter 5 as new requirement 5.2.4 ( and renumber Section 5.2 thereafter) 5.2.4 7.3.2 All pipelines, including heating coils, fire-extinguishing systems, and vents, together with the cargo pumps and cargo lines serving the chemical-carrying spaces, shall be initially dealt with to the satisfaction of the Marine Chemist. Care shall be exercised in the selection of methods and materials used for cleaning or inerting to avoid noncompatibility with previous cargoes.5.2.5 5.2.4 Compartments or spaces in which internal repairs or alterations are to be undertaken shall be cleaned to comply with the requirements of Section 5.3, and all other spaces (with the exception of tanks described in 5.1.3) shall be inerted in accordance with the requirements of 4.3.8 or 4.3.9, as applicable. 5.2.6 5.2.5 Compartments or spaces on which external repairs or alterations are to be undertaken on the external boundaries (deck or shell) shall be permitted to be inerted by gas instead of being cleaned as described in Section 5.2, and all other spaces (with the exception of tanks described in 5.1.3) shall be inerted in accordance with the requirements of 4.3.8 or 4.3.9, as applicable. Substantiation: The Committee has preserved the requirement concerning special cargoes and inerting media from Chapter 7. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-100 Log #26 Final Action: Reject(7.3.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.3.3 Compartments that have carried chemicals in bulk and that are to be cleaned shall be cleaned so that the atmosphere in those compartments is in accordance with 4.3.1 and 4.3.4 or 4.3.6 as applicable. Adjacent spaces shall be treated in accordance with 4.3.4 or 4.3.6 as applicable.Substantiation: The compartment is cleaned to meet applicable sections of 306. This new wording clarifies the intention of the document to have the compartment to meet the full requirements of each section of 306. This wording better states the intention of the section. Additionally, this new wording addresses adjacent spaces. (depending on if another submitted proposal is accepted then it may be possible to specify what sections of 4.3.4 or 4.3.6 apply to adjacent spaces). Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: It is the opinion of the Committee that Chapter 7 of the standard has no unique requirements for chemical tank ships. The Committee therefore created a proposal to delete the Chapter. See the Committee’s Action on 306-96 (Log #CP7). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-101 Log #27 Final Action: Reject(7.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald V. Raffo, Stonington, CTRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.3.4 The residues in the compartments concerned shall be such that the conditions of 4.3.1 and 4.3.4 or 4.3.6 as applicable, will be met. Adjacent spaces shall be treated in accordance with 4.3.4 or 4.3.6 sections as applicable. Substantiation: The new wording permits the SFLHW designation to be used and addresses adjacent spaces next to the compartment undergoing hot work. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal.

Committee Statement: It is the opinion of the Committee that Chapter 7 of the standard has no unique requirements for chemical tank ships. The Committee therefore created a proposal to delete the Chapter. See the Committee’s Action on 306-96 (Log #CP7). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-102 Log #60 Final Action: Reject(A.3.3.1 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:A.3.3.1 Adjacent Spaces. Confined and enclosed spaces unaffected by work being conducted in another space, to which they are in contact, are adjacent spaces. Pipelines unaffected by work in spaces through which they pass are not adjacent spaces.Note: if accepted, an asterisk (*) will have to be added to section 3.3.1 in the body of the Standard (i.e. “3.3.1* Adjacent Spaces.”)Substantiation: There are some who consider pipelines as meeting the literal definition of an adjacent space. Adding this explanatory material to Annex A helps corrects this. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: The content of this proposal is incorporated in the Committee’s Action in 306-12 (Log #73). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-103 Log #40 Final Action: Reject(A.3.3.16)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: ...Furthermore, a “Requester” can be either a “Host Employer” or a “Contract Employer.” A Host Employer and a Contract Employer are two separate entities, who have a relationship to one another via a formal contract (as per definition). What additionally distinguishes one from the other is the Host Employer’s ability to “coordinate” all work in their shipyard or workplace with other employers. The Contract Employer does not have this ability. Thus, when exercised (not all shipyards want the associated liability), a Host Employer is in a better position to maintain a MC Certificate for themselves and all other employers, A Contract Employer can only coordinate work and maintain a MC Certificate for their own employees. They have limited authority and/or understanding to “tell” other contractors (including the Host Employer) what to do. Full knowledge of the scope of everyone’s work, authority to coordinate the work packages of all(sub)contractors, and maintenance of the Certificate for all employers is in the Host Employer’s domain.Substantiation: The “Certificate requester” is responsible for “understanding [4.6.1(A)] and “signing [(B)] the Certificate. The “Certificate requester” is also responsible for “providing a complete statement of the scope of work” to the MC and “maintaining the Certificate” [(D)]. The Host Employer can be “responsible for maintaining the Certificate for all contract employers [(D)], but not the other way around. The Host Employer “is in charge of coordinating work or who hires other employers to perform work at a multi-employer workplace” [3.3.11], but not the Contract Employer. In addition, a “subcontractor” can be a Contract Employer who is “under contract to the host employer or to another employer under contract to the host employer” [3.3.7]. Other times, a subcontractor has no direct, or even indirect, contractual relationship with the Host Employer. They are simply working in the Host Employer’s shipyard due to availability, etc. In any event, whether contractually related or not, it is doubtful all subcontractors will know the complete “scope of work” that the Host Employer and other Contract Employers are involved. Thus, it is not feasible for Contract Employers to adequately “maintain their Certificate” for other employers when they do not completely understand the nature and scope of the work of others. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposal is confusing and doesn’t add to the definition or enhance understanding of the definition. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-104 Log #59 Final Action: Reject(A.3.3.19 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: A.3.3.19 Subject Space. Referring to the illustrations found in Annex B Examples of Safe Conditions, hot work (i.e. the circled “W”) in the middle of Tank 5 Center would necessitate this tank be certified Safe for Hot Work. In this example, Tank 5 Center is the “subject space.” Furthermore, there are eight “adjacent spaces” to Tank 5 Center (i.e, 4P, 4C, 4S, 5P, 5S, 6P, 6C, and 6S). These “adjacent spaces” are not the same as the “subject space” affected by hot

306-23

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306work. In another example, if hot work in Tank 5 Center is against its forward bulkhead (i.e. the same steel plate that comprises the after bulkhead of Tank 4 Center), then there will be two “subject spaces” affected by hot work (i.e. 4C and 5C, even though the welder may be still physically located in Tank 5 Center). Both tanks, then, will have to be certified Safe for Hot Work. Also, there is now a total of ten “adjacent spaces” to the hot work being conducted on the common bulkhead between Tanks 4 Center and 5 Center (i.e. 3P, 3C, 3S, 4P, 4S, 5P, 5S, 6P, 6C, and 6S).Substantiation: The statements found in Annex A (A.4.4.3) and the illustrations found on the same page in Annex B (Examples of Safe Conditions), when considered together, have promoted confusion regarding the understanding of “subject spaces” vs. “adjacent spaces.” First, since an Annex “is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document”, the two clauses “If there is no additional statement regarding the scope of work on the Certificate” and “authorized work or prohibited work should be listed on the Certificate” are not mandatory. Second, when the middle clause of A.4.4.3, “any hot work or cold work can proceed as indicated by the standard safety designation,” is further considered, some have interpreted this to mean that any hot work in Tank 5 Center can commence (including hot work against any of the four bulkheads of 5C) provided Tank 5 Center is designated Safe for Hot Work and there are no additional statements, etc. to the contrary (the validity of this interpretation is not the focus of this Substantiation). Third, this helps explain why some workers have welded against bulkheads, overheads, and decks when the opposite side was never inspected. Their only concern was whether the space in which they were physically located was certified Safe for Hot Work. This ought not to be the case, and this added “explanatory material” will give a visual example that cannot be presented in the body of the Standard’s requirements. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected the proposal. Committee Statement: The term subject space is any space that is not an adjacent space. The addition of a definition of subject space or an Annex A note doesn’t add any additional clarification to the standard and may create more confusion. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-105 Log #99 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.3.3.20)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental & Marine Services, Inc. / Rep. Marine Chemist Association 306 Committee Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: A.3.3.20 Vessel. Offshore drilling, production and/or storage vessels can be included in this definition. In addition, hollow vessels throughout the shipyard, including tank trucks, railroad tank cars, powerplant fuel tanks, storage tanks, dip and laundry tanks, vaults, tunnels, etc., also are considered vessels.Substantiation: Since 1994, the scope of 29CFR1915 has included such shipyard hollow vessels other than ships, barges, etc., including tank trucks, railroad tank cars, powerplant fuel tanks, storage tanks, dip and laundry tanks, vaults, tunnels etc. in its scope. The proposed change makes it clear to the reader that these spaces are also included as part of the definition of vessel in this standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee moved text from this proposal into 1.1.6 of the Standard. Committee Statement: The change made to the requirement in 1.1.6 of the standard (306- (Log #104)) addresses hollow structures that are not part of marine vessels within the shipyard. The Committee chose to keep the term “vessel” reserved for marine vessels as defined in 3.3.20 rather than confuse it with the term hollow structures in 3.3.10 of the standard. The submitter’s intent was incorporated in the Committee’s Action in 306-4 (Log #104). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-106 Log #100 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.3.4.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental & Marine Services, Inc. / Rep. Marine Chemist Association 306 Committee Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:A.3.4.2 Hot Work. Grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, or similar spark-producing operations are considered hot work unless deemed otherwise by a Marine Chemist and stated in writing on a Marine Chemist’s Certificates should always considered hot work when conducted in the presence of accumulations of flammable gases, flammable or combustible liquids, their vapors or accumulations of other common combustible materials.Substantiation: The proposed language sufficiently clarifies the meaning of hot work conducted in the presence of readily ignitable materials near applied sources of ignition, making the current language unnecessary. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleFrom the Committee’s Action on 306- (Log #102). The asterisk was added to the listed item C.(C)* (D) Grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, the activation of non-intrinsically

or non-explosion-proof equipment or similar operations in the presence of or against accumulations of readily combustible materials or flammable or combustible liquids or their vapors when the atmosphere exceeds 10% LEL. A.3.4.2(C) Hot Work. Grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, or similar spark-producing operations are considered hot work unless deemed otherwise by a Marine Chemist and stated in writing on a Marine Chemist’s Certificates should always considered hot work when conducted in the presence of accumulations of flammable gases, flammable or combustible liquids, their vapors or accumulations of other common combustible materials.Committee Statement: Based upon the Committee’s Action on 306-22 (Log #102) it was determined that the best placement for the proposed text was in listed item (C). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-107 Log #34 Final Action: Reject(A.4.3.1(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas Beacham, Marine Chemist & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Recommendation: Delete the following text: When determining “permissible concentrations” according to 4.3.1(3), the Marine Chemist should use the lower value of the published ACHIH’s Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) or OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) as the primary source for compliance with this requirement. Only in the absence of a published TLV and PEL for a substance should the Marine Chemist refer to Manufacturer’s MSDSs to determine if any alternate value exists.Substantiation: The responsibility of determining worker exposure (PELs) in the maritime industry is the responsibility of OSHA. Requiring the Marine Chemist to use a “non regulation”, such as those published by ACGIH, puts the Marine Chemist in a position of imposing a non-OSHA requirement on industry. This is the case with The ACHIH TLVs for diesel, JP-5 and now the Hydrogen sulfide limit. By accepting this proposal the Committee will assure the standard continues to be in compliance with 1.4 which states “Nothing in this standard shall be construed as superseding existing requirements of any governmental or local authority.” Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee revised the Annex note in its action for 306-40 (Log #37) as follows: A.4.3.1(3) OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit Values (PELs) are found Permissible concentrations can be found in the latest version of Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents, published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, in Subpart Z of 29 CFR 1915.1000,. “Permissible Exposure Limit Value,” or the value listed in the Manufacturers’ Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).In addition to or in the absence of an When determining “permissible concentrations” according to 4.3.1(3), the Marine Chemist should use the lower value of the published ACGIH’s Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) or OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) as the primary source for compliance with this requirement. Only in the absence of a published TLV and PEL for a substance should the Marine Chemist should refer to the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents, published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure Limits (REL’s), or Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) to determine if any alternate value exists. Committee Statement: As stated in its action on 306-40 (Log #37) the Committee believes that is also necessary to provide guidance to the Marine Chemist regarding best practice when making such assessments particularly in the absence of an OSHA PEL or in situations where a PEL may not provide sufficient protection. Therefore the Committee revised the Annex note (A.4.3.1(3)) for this requirement and included that change with its action on this proposal. The revised Annex note directs the Marine Chemist to other reference documents for occupational exposure limits when appropriate. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-108 Log #46 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.4.3.1(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: David J. Capen, Sr., Upper Chesapeake Chemist Co., Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: When determining “permissible concentrations” according to 4.3.1(3), the Marine Chemist should use the lower value of the published ACGIH’s Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) or OSHA’s Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) as the primary source for compliance with this requirement. Only in the absence of published TLV and PEL for a substance should the Marine Chemist refer to the ACGIH’s Threshold Limit Valves (TLVs) or Manufacturer’s MSDSs to determine if any alternate value exists. Substantiation: Currently Marine Chemist must use the lowest published value (PEL or TLV). This is a problem because ACGIH’s TLVs are not concensus standards and not enforcable according to OSHA’s standards.

306-24

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306Furthermore, Section 1.4 says NFPA 306 “shall be construed as superseding...”, this revised wording keeps the standard in compliance with OSHA. Also manufacturers of portable instruments are having difficulties making instruments to meet arbitrary values. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleSee the Committee’s Action on 306-40 (Log #37). Committee Statement: As stated in its action on 306-40 (Log #37) the Committee believes that is also necessary to provide guidance to the Marine Chemist regarding best practice when making such assessments particularly in the absence of an OSHA PEL or in situations where a PEL may not provide sufficient protection. Therefore the Committee revised the Annex note (A.4.3.1(3)) for this requirement and included that change with its action on this proposal. The revised Annex note directs the Marine Chemist to other reference documents for occupational exposure limits when appropriate. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-109 Log #108 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.4.3.8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Phillip Dovinh, Sound Testing Inc.Recommendation: Please add the following text to read: The improper introduction of an inerting gas can generate sufficient static electricity for ignition. Refer to the current NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems for level of oxygen to support combustion and NFPA 77, Recommended Practice on Static Electricity.Substantiation: Currently, there are no references listed in NFPA-306 for guidance on the control of static electricity, especially during inerting. NFPA-77, Recommended Practice on Static Electricity fills this void adequately. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee modified the text as follows: The improper introduction of an inerting gas can generate sufficient static electricity for ignition. Refer to the current NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems for level of oxygen to support combustion and NFPA 77, Recommended Practice on Static Electricity and industry standards such as International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals (ISGOTT) and Tanker Safety Guide (Chemicals). Committee Statement: The Committee added other industry reference sources. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-110 Log #29 Final Action: Reject(A.4.4.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert H. Walker, III, Marine Chemist Service, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: If there is no additional statement regarding the scope of the work on the Certificate, any hot work or cold work can proceed as indicated by the standard safety designation, with the exception of all lines, vents, heating coils, valves, and similar enclosed appurtenances, as well as all adjacent spaces, which shall be considered NOT SAFE FOR HOT WORK unless otherwise specifically designated. If all types of work cannot be conducted safely under a standard safety designation, then the authorized work or prohibited work should be listed on the Certificate. Substantiation: The revised (underlined) wording is almost verbatim with a portion of the QUALIFICATIONS section on the Certificate. However, 1) A.4.4.3 does not mention this qualification, and there is a perception that these areas are allowable; 2) the QUALIFICATIONS section is standard wording, instead of an “additional statement,” and the literal implication/expectation is additional authorized or prohibited writing in the body of the Certificate; and 3) few people read the “small print” of any document and having this information, even in the Annex, helps shed additional light on certain areas in which hot work should not be conducted. Unchanged, A.4.4.3 conflicts with this portion of the QUALIFICATIONS section on the Certificate, and creates confusion. Committee Meeting Action: RejectThe Committee rejected this proposal. Committee Statement: The Committee addressed the content of this proposal in its action in 306-12 (Log #73). Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-111 Log #89 Final Action: Accept(A.4.4.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald Raffo, Marine Chemist Association 306 CommitteeRecommendation: Delete all of A.4.4.3A.4.4.3 If there is no additional statement regarding the scope of the work on the certificate, any hot work or cold work can proceed as indicated by the standard safety designation. If all types of work cannot be conducted safely under a standard safety designation, then the authorized work or prohibited work should be listed on the Certificate

Substantiation: Due to additions of SAFE FOR LIMITED HOT WORK and other revisions to the standard this statement is no longer necessary.. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-112 Log #98 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.4.6.2(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Edward J. Willwerth, Atlantic Environmental & Marine Services, Inc. / Rep. Marine Chemist Association 306 Committee Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:A.4.6.2(3) The Marine Chemist can recognize a facility’s procedures and infrastructure used to minimize risk and hazards to people and equipment through engineering controls supplemented by administrative controls. As an example, mechanical exhaust ventilation for the space has been installed and will operate continuously. OSHA, in 29 CFR 1915.13, notes that the frequency of retesting the atmospheric conditions of a space should be a function of several factors, including temperature, work in the tank, period of time elapsed, unattended tanks, work breaks, or ballasting. This section allows the rotation of work away from spaces that have been certified and worked in or on, but where work has been suspended due to schedule requirements. It requires the shipyard competent person (if not the Marine Chemist) to reinspect and establish that safe conditions remain in certified spaces and applicable adjacent spaces before work resumes in or on such spaces. Vessel or shipyard management must always be aware however. that any suspension of work in or on a confined or enclosed space constitutes a time for significant potential accumulation of hazards. and careful and documented reinspection before reentry and resumption of work is a strict necessity and requirement.Substantiation: This language clarifies current ambiguous language currently in section 4.6.2(3). Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee modified the text as follows: A.4.6.2(3) The Marine Chemist can recognize a facility’s procedures and infrastructure used to minimize risk and hazards to people and equipment through engineering controls supplemented by administrative controls. As an example, mechanical exhaust ventilation for the space has been installed and will operate continuously. OSHA, in 29 CFR 1915.13, notes that the frequency of retesting the atmospheric conditions of a space should be a function of several factors, including temperature, work in the tank, period of time elapsed, unattended tanks, work breaks, or ballasting. This section allows the rotation of work away from spaces that have been certified and worked in or on, but where work has been suspended due to schedule requirements. It requires the shipyard competent person (if not the Marine Chemist) to reinspect and establish that safe conditions remain in certified spaces and applicable adjacent spaces before work resumes in or on such spaces. Vessel or shipyard management must always be aware however. that any suspension of work in or on a confined or enclosed space constitutes a time for significant potential accumulation of hazards. and careful and documented reinspection before reentry and resumption of work is a strict necessity and requirement. The intent of this wording is to clarify that spaces listed on the Marine Chemist Certificate do not need to be tested by the competent person unless work is being done on or in a space. For example, spaces on a certificate do not need to be tested and inspected on a weekend if no work or entry is taking place. However, nothing shall prevent a competent person from testing more frequently than the minimum. Committee Statement: The Committee added the accepted Annex A text from 306-70 (Log #83) to the end of the proposed new text by this submitter. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-113 Log #CP4 Final Action: Accept(A.5.1, A.5.2, A.5.3, A.5.4, A.5.5, A.5.8 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, Recommendation: Add an asterisk to the following sections of Chapter 5:5.1*5.2*5.3*5.4*5.5*5.8*Add the following to Annex A: A.5.1 The requirements of this section can be used in preparing other spaces such as fuel tanks, landside spaces or hollow structures covered by the standard as appropriate. A.5.2 The requirements of this section can be used in preparing other spaces such as fuel tanks, landside spaces or hollow structures covered by the standard as appropriate. A.5.3 The requirements of this section can be used in preparing other spaces such as fuel tanks, landside spaces or hollow structures covered by the standard as appropriate.

306-25

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306A.5.4 The requirements of this section can be used in preparing other spaces such as fuel tanks, landside spaces or hollow structures covered by the standard as appropriate. A.5.5 The requirements of this section can be used in preparing other spaces such as fuel tanks, landside spaces or hollow structures covered by the standard as appropriate. A.5.8 The requirements of this section can be used in preparing other spaces such as fuel tanks, landside spaces or hollow structures covered by the standard as appropriate.Substantiation: The requirements found in Chapter 5 can be used for preparing other types of vessels as covered by the Standard (such as fuel tanks, landside structures and hollow structures) for the issuance of a Marine Chemist’s Certificate for hot work. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-114 Log #CP5 Final Action: Accept(A.5.4.1.1 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, Recommendation: Add new Annex A note A.5.4.1.1 to read as follows:5.4.1.1*A.5.4.1.1 The valves to the inerted compartments referenced in this requirement do not include those valves that are part of a fixed inert gas system used to in controlling the introduction of the inerting medium into the subject space. During the inerting process the valves on the inert gas line to a subject space are used by qualified individuals to regulate inert gas flow and/or pressure in the inerted space.Substantiation: The Annex note recognizes the need for qualified individuals to be able to manage inert gas delivered through fixed inert gas systems that is introduced into a compartment to maintain a safe condition. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-115 Log #CP11 Final Action: Accept(Annex B)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, Recommendation: Update Figure B.1, Illustrations of Safe Conditions, in Annex B to depict a modern double-hulled tank ship with an aft accommodation block. Change the text in Annex B as follows: Annex B Examples of Safe Conditions This annex is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only. B.1 The illustrations of a double-hulled tank ship in Figure B.1, parts (a) through (f), are examples of safe conditions discussed in Chapter 5 of this standard. In this example hot work is planned for the deck area above the 4-starboard cargo tank. The conditions shown in the drawings correspond to Sections 5.1 through 5.4 of this standard. Although the single plane drawings show horizontal separations only, vertical compartmentation should be similarly treated.

6 5 4

4S 4P

3 2 1ENGINE ROOM

(a) Side and cross-section view

(b) Section 5.1: Safe condition obtained by cleaning all cargo tanks, slop tanks and wing and double-bottom ballast tanks.

(c) Section 5.2: Safe condition obtained by inerting the subject spaceand other cargo tanks and slop tanks. All wing and double-bottom

ballast tanks are filled with water.

(d) Section 5.2: Safe condition obtained by inerting the subject spaceand other cargo tanks and slop tanks. All wing and double-bottom

ballast tanks are filled with water.

(e) Section 5.3: Safe condition obtained entirely by cleaning the subjectspace and adjacent cargo tanks and securing all other cargo tanks.

All wing and double-bottom ballast tanks are filled with water.

(f) Section 5.4: Safe condition obtained by cleaning the subject spaceinerting the adjacent cargo tanks and securing all other cargo tanks andslop tanks. All wing and double-bottom ballast tanks are filled with water.

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

Key: Inert Secured

Ballast Clean

Workw

Figure B.1 Illustrations of Safe Conditions

306-26

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306Substantiation: The drawing in Annex B of the standard appears to be a drawing of a T-2 class tank ship, last built in 1945. The drawing is also a single skin tanker. Single skin tank ships are obsolete, replaced by double-hulled tank vessels. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-116 Log #109 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Annex C)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Phillip Dovinh, Sound Testing Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: Please add examples of both, the current 8.5x14” NFPA Marine Chemist paper Certificate and the new NFPA EMCC (Electronic Marine Chemist Certificate) to this Annex.Substantiation: Industry needs to see samples of offical NFPA Certificates for verification. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe Committee revised Annex C as follows (sample forms to be included in the Report on Proposals): Annex C Samples of Marine Chemist’s CertificatesThis annex is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only.C.1 The Certificate shown in Figure C.1 is a sample of the paper form that is to be filled out manually by the Marine Chemist at the completion of the inspection. Changes to Figure C.1: Delete MARINE CHEMIST’S CERTIFICATE from the top center of the figure. Caption for Figure C.1: FIGURE C.1 Sample of the Paper Form to be Filled Out After Inspection for Certification. C.2 The Certificate shown in Figure C.2 is a sample of the computer-generated form that is created by the Marine Chemist at the completion of the inspection. The printed form can be produced on letter or legal size paper and can be printed in color or black and white.Caption for Figure C.2: FIGURE C.2 Sample of the Computer-Generated Form to be Filled Out After Inspection for Certification.(See Figures C.1 and C.2 on the pages. 27 thru 28) Committee Statement: The Committee agreed with the submitter. The change to Figure C.1 is made since that text does not appear on the Certificate form that is in current use. The Committee revised text concerning Figure C.1 and added new text for new Figure C.2. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

_______________________________________________________________ 306-117 Log #110 Final Action: Accept in Principle(D.1(2))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Phillip Dovinh, Sound Testing Inc.Recommendation: Please add the following guidance document right below D.1(2): International Safety Guide for Inland Navigation Tank-barges and Terminals (ISGINTT) Substantiation: The ISGINTT is a new publication. It’s a great guidance.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleThe following information should also be added to Annex F: F.X.X.X CCNR Publications. Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine, 2 Place de la République, 67082 Strasbourg Cedex, France. International Safety Guide for Inland Navigation Tank-barges and Terminals (ISGINTT), first edition, 2010.Committee Statement: The Committee agrees with the submitter’s proposal. This Guide provides safety (best) practices on the operation of tank barges and terminals utilizing a risk-based control philosophy. Referencing the Guide in the Standard is viewed by the committee as a proactive approach to enhancing risk awareness and managing gas hazards associated with tank barge operations. Number Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J._______________________________________________________________ 306-118 Log #CP10 Final Action: Accept(Table E.1(a), Table E.1.(b))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, Recommendation: Update Annex E to the current edition of NFPA 69.Replace Table E.1(a) Limiting Oxidant Concentrations for Flammable Gases When Using Nitrogen or Carbon Dioxide as Diluents with Table C.1(a) Limiting Oxidant Concentrations for Flammable Gases When Using Nitrogen or Carbon Dioxide as Diluents from NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2008 edition.Replace Table E.1(b) Limiting Oxidant Concentrations for Combustible Dust Suspensions When Using Nitrogen or Carbon Dioxide as Diluents with Table C.1(b) Limiting Oxidant Concentrations for Combustible Dust Suspensions When Using Nitrogen as a Diluent from NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2008 edition.(See Table E.1(a) and Table E.1(b) on pages 29 thru 31.) Substantiation: Updates the information in Annex E with the most current data from NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2008 edition.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.

306-27

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306

Survey Requested by Vessel Owner or Agent Date

Vessel Type of Vessel Specific Location of Vessel

Last Three (3) Loadings Tests Performed Time Survey Completed

MARINE CHEMIST CERTIFICATESERIAL NO. A 00000

QUALIFICATIONS: Transfer of ballast, cargo, fuel, or manipulation of valves or closure equipment tending to alter conditions in pipelines, tanks, or compartments subject to gas accumulation, unless specifically approved in this Certificate, requires inspection and a new Certificate for spaces so affected. All lines, vents, heating coils, valves, and similar enclosed appurtenances are considered “not safe” unless otherwise specifically designated. Movement of the vessel from its specific location voids the Certificate unless shifting of the vessel within the facility has been specifically authorized on this Certificate.

STANDARD SAFETY DESIGNATIONS (partial list, paraphrased from NFPA 306):

ATMOSPHERE SAFE FOR WORKERS: In the compartment or space so designated (a) the oxygen content of the atmosphere is at least 19.5 percent and not greater than 22 percent by volume; (b) the concentration of flammable materials is below 10 percent of the lower explosive limit; (c) any toxic materials in the atmosphere associated with cargo, fuel, tank coatings, inerting mediums, or fumigants are within permissible concentrations at the time of the inspection.

NOT SAFE FOR WORKERS: In the compartment or space so designated, entry is not permitted.

ENTER WITH RESTRICTIONS: In the compartment or space so designated, entry for work is permitted only if conditions of proper protective equipment, or clothing, or time, or all of the aforementioned, as appropriate, are as specified.

SAFE FOR HOT WORK: In the compartment or space so designated (a) the oxygen content of the atmosphere is not greater than 22 percent by volume; (b) the concentration of flammable materials in the atmosphere is less than 10 percent of the lower explosive limit; (c) the residues, scale, or preservative coatings are cleaned sufficiently to prevent the spread of fire and are not capable of producing a higher concentration than permitted by (a) or (b); (d) all adjacent spaces containing or having contained flammable or combustible materials are sufficiently cleaned of residues, scale, or preservative coatings to prevent the spread of fire, or they are to be inerted. Ship’s fuel tanks, lube tanks, or engine room or fire room bilges, or other machinery spaces, are to be treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements.

NOT SAFE FOR HOT WORK: In the compartment or space so designated, hot work is not permitted.

SAFE FOR LIMITED HOT WORK: In the compartment or space so designated (a) portions of the space are to meet the requirements for SAFE FOR HOT WORK AND PARTIAL CLEANING, as applicable; (b) the space is to be inerted, adjacent spaces are to meet the requirements for SAFE FOR HOT WORK, and hot work is restricted to specific locations; (c) portions of the space are to meet the requirements for Safe for Hot Work, as applicable, and the nature or type of hot work is to be limited or restricted.

CHEMIST’S ENDORSEMENT: This is to certify that I have personally determined that all spaces in the foregoing list are in accordance with NFPA 306, Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels, and have found the condition of each to be in accordance with its assigned designation.

In the event of physical or atmospheric changes affecting the STANDARD SAFETY DESIGNATIONS assigned to any of the above spaces, this certificate is voided; spaces not listed on the Certificate are not to be entered unless authorized on another Certificate and/or maintained in

accordance with OSHA 29 CFR 1915; or if in any doubt, immediately stop all work and contact the undersigned Marine Chemist. Unless otherwise stated on the Certifcate, all spaces and affected adjacent spaces are to be reinspected daily or more often as necessary by the competent person in

support of work prior to entry or recommencement of work.

Signed SignedName Company Date Marine Chemist

The undersigned acknowledges receipt of this Certificate under NFPA 306 and understands conditions and limitations under which it was issued, and the requirements for maintaining its validity.

This Certificate is based on conditions existing at the time the inspection herein set forth was completed and is issued subject to compliance with all qualifications and instructions.

Certificate No.

VESSEL POSTING

NFPA 306© 2013 National Fire Protection Association

Figure C.1 Sample of the Form to be Filled Out After Inspection Fire Certification.

Proposal 306-116 Committee Action

306-28

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306

MARINE CHEMIST CERTIFICATESERIAL 000-00000

Page 1 of 1

C. M. Chemist — NFPA Certificated Marine Chemist1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169Office: 000-000-0000 Fax: 000-000-0000

Certificate Requester Ship Owner Certificate Issue DateSurvey Requested by Vessel Owner or Agent Date

Vessel Name Vessel Type Vessel LocationVessel Type of Vessel Specific Location of Vessel

Last 3 Loadings O2, LEL, Visual, Toxic-1, Toxic-2, Toxic-3, Toxic-4 Certificate Issue TimeLast Three 3 Loadings Tests Performed Time Survey Completed

Authorized Representative Date Company Signed Marine Chemist CMC No.

Inspected Spaces: Safety Designations:List of Subject Spaces appear here. All applicable Standard Safety Designations appear here.

Instructions:Other qualifications, instructions, or limitations from the Marine Chemist as required and/or appropriate for the subject spaces.

Test Results: % O2 % LEL Toxic-1 Toxic-2 Toxic-3 Toxic-4Applies to all inspected spaces listed above % % ppm ppm ppm ppm

Adjacent Spaces:Adjacent space information as required and/or appropriate.

Entire Vessel Instructions:Other instructions from the Marine Chemist as required and/or appropriate applicable to the entire vessel.

The undersigned acknowledges receipt of this Certificate under NFPA 306 and understands conditions and limitations under which it was issued, and the requirements for maintaining its validity.

This Certificate is based on conditions existing at the time the inspection herein set forth was completed and is issued subject to compliance with all qualifications and instructions.

In the event of physical or atmospheric changes affecting the STANDARD SAFETY DESIGNATIONS assigned to any of the above spaces, this certificate is voided; spaces not listed on the Certificate are not to be entered unless authorized on another Certificate and/or maintained in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR 1915; or if in any doubt, immediately stop all work and contact the undersigned Marine Chemist. Unless otherwise stated on the Certificate, all spaces and affected adjacent spaces are to be reinspected daily or more often as necessary by the competent person or the authority have jurisdiction as applicable in support of work prior to entry or recommencementof work.

QUALIFICATIONS: Transfer of ballast, cargo, fuel, or manipulation of valves or closure equipment tending to alter conditions in pipelines, tanks, or compartments subject to gas accumulation, unless specifically approved on this Certificate, requires inspection and a new Certificate for spaces so affected. All lines, vents, heating coils, valves, and similar enclosed appurtenances shall be considered “not safe” unless otherwise specifically designated. Movement of the vessel from its specific location voids the Certificate unless shifting of the vessel within the facility has been specifically authorized on this certificate.

STANDARD SAFETY DESIGNATIONS: (partial list, paraphrased from NFPA 306)

ATMOSPHERE SAFE FOR WORKERS: In the compartment or space so designated (a) the oxygen content of the atmosphere is at least 19.5 percent and not greater than 22 percent by volume; (b) the concentration of flammable materials is below 10 percent of the lower explosive limit; (c) any toxic materials in the atmosphere associated with cargo, fuel, tank coatings, inerting mediums, or fumigants are within permissible concentrations at the time of the inspection.

NOT SAFE FOR WORKERS: In the compartment or space so designated, entry shall not be permitted.

ENTER WITH RESTRICTIONS: In the compartment or space so designated, entry for work is permitted only if conditions of proper protective equipment, or clothing, or time, or all of the aforementioned, as appropriate, are as specified.

SAFE FOR HOT WORK: In the compartment or space so designated (a) the oxygen content of the atmosphere is not greater than 22 percent by volume; (b) the concentration of flammable materials in the atmosphere is less than 10 percent of the lower explosive limit; (c) the residues, scale, or preservative coatings are cleaned sufficiently to prevent the spread of fire and are not capable of producing a higher concentration than permitted by (a) or (b); (d) all adjacent spaces, containing or having contained flammable or combustible materials shall be sufficiently cleaned of residues, scale, or preservative coatings to prevent the spread of fire, or they are inerted. Ship’s fuel tanks, lube tanks, or engine room or fire room bilges, or other machinery spaces, are to be treated in accordance with the Marine Chemist’s requirements.

SAFE FOR LIMITED HOT WORK: In the compartment or space so designated (a) portions of the space meet the requirements for Safe for Hot Work and Partial Cleaning, as applicable; or (b) the space is inerted, adjacent spaces meet the requirements for Safe for Hot Work, and hot work is restricted to specific locations; (c) portions of the space shall meet the requirements for Safe for Hot Work, as applicable, and the nature or type of hot work shall be limited or restricted.

NOT SAFE FOR HOT WORK: In the compartment or space so designated, hot work is not permitted.

CHEMIST’S ENDORSEMENT: This is to certify that I have personally determined that all spaces in the foregoing list are in accordance with NFPA 306 Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels and have found the condition of each to be in accordance with its assigned designation.

Figure C.2 Sample of the Electronic Marine Chemist Certificate with Location and Explanation of Key Information.

Proposal 306-116 Committee Action

306-29

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306

Table E.1(a) Limiting Oxidant Concentrations for Flammable Gases When Nitrogen or Carbon Dioxide Are Used as Diluents Adjusted LOC

(Volume % O2 Above Which Deflagration Can Take Place) per 7.2.3

Original LOC (Volume % O2 Above Which Deflagration

Can Take Place) Gas/Vapor N2–Air Mixture CO2–Air Mixture Reference* N2–Air Mixture CO2–Air Mixture Methane 10.0 12.5 1 12.0 14.5 Ethane 9.0 11.5 1 11.0 13.5 Propane 9.5 12.5 1 11.5 14.5 n-Butane 10.0 12.5 1 12.0 14.5 n-Butyl acetate 9.0 — 9 9.0 — Isobutane 10.0 13.0 1 12.0 15.0 n-Pentane 10.0 12.5 1 12.0 14.5 Isopentane 10.0 12.5 2 12.0 14.5 n-Hexane 10.0 12.5 1 12.0 14.5 n-Heptane 9.5 12.5 2 11.5 14.5 Ethanol 8.7 — 9 8.7 — Ethylene 8.0 9.5 1 10.0 11.5 Propylene 9.5 12.0 1 11.5 14.0 1-Butene 9.5 12.0 1 11.5 14.0 Isobutylene 10.0 13.0 4 12.0 15.0 Butadiene 8.5 11.0 1 10.5 13.0 3-Methyl-1- butene

9.5 12.0 4 11.5 14.0

Benzene 10.1 12.0 1, 7 11.4 14.0 Toluene 9.5 — 7, 9 9.5 — Styrene 9.0 — 7 9.0 — Ethylbenzene 9.0 — 7 9.0 — Vinyltoluene 9.0 — 7 9.0 — Divinylbenzene 8.5 — 7 8.5 — Diethylbenzene 8.5 — 7 8.5 — Cyclopropane 9.5 12.0 1 11.5 14.0 Gasoline (73/100) 10.0 13.0 2 12.0 15.0 (100/130) 10.0 13.0 2 12.0 15.0 (115/145) 10.0 12.5 2 12.0 14.5 Kerosene 8.0 (150°C) 11.0 (150°C) 5 10.0 (150°C) 13.0 (150°C) JP-1 fuel 8.5 (150°C) 12.0 (150°C) 2 10.5 (150°C) 14.0 (150°C) JP-3 fuel 10.0 12.5 2 12.0 14.5 JP-4 fuel 9.5 12.5 2 11.5 14.5 Natural gas (Pittsburgh) 10.0 12.5 1 12.0 14.5 n-Butyl chloride 12.0 — 3 14.0 — 10.0 (100°C) — 3 12.0 (100°C) — Methylene chloride 17.0 (30°C)

15.0 (100°C) ——

3

3

19.0 (30°C) 17.0 (100°C)

—

—Ethylene dichloride 11.0

9.5 (100°C) ——

3

3

13.0 11.5 (100°C)

—

—1,1,1-Trichloro- ethane

12.0 — 3 14.0 —

Trichloro- ethylene

7.0 (100°C) — 3 9.0 (100°C) —

Acetone 9.5 12.0 4 11.5 14.0 n-Butanol NA 14.5 (150°C) 4 NA 16.5 (150°C) Carbon disulfide 3.0 5.5 4 5.0 7.5 Carbon monoxide 3.5 3.5 4 5.5 5.5 Ethanol 8.5 11.0 4 10.5 13.0 2-Ethyl butanol 7.5 (150°C) — 4 9.5 (150°C) — Ethyl ether 8.5 11.0 4 10.5 13.0 Hydrogen 3.0 3.2 4 5.0 5.2

Proposal 306-118 Recommendation

306-30

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306

Table E.1(a) Limiting Oxidant Concentrations for Flammable Gases When Nitrogen or Carbon Dioxide Are Used as Diluents (continued)

Adjusted LOC (Volume % O2 Above Which Deflagration

Can Take Place) per 7.2.3

Original LOC (Volume % O2 Above Which Deflagration

Can Take Place) Gas/Vapor N2–Air Mixture CO2–Air Mixture Reference* N2–Air Mixture CO2–Air Mixture Hydrogen sulfide 5.5 9.5 4 7.5 11.5 Isobutyl acetate 9.1 — 9 9.1 — Isobutyl alcohol 9.1 — 9 9.1 — Isobutyl formate 10.5 13.0 4 12.5 15.0 Isopropyl acetate 8.8 — 9 8.8 — Isopropyl alcohol 9.5 — 10 9.5 — Methanol 8.0 10.0 4 10.0 12.0 Methyl acetate 9.0 11.5 4 11.0 13.5 Propylene oxide 5.8 — 8 7.8 — Methyl ether 8.5 11.0 4 10.5 13.0 Methyl formate 8.0 10.5 4 10.0 12.5 Methyl ethyl ketone 9.0 11.5 4 11.0 13.5 n-Propyl acetate 10.1 — 10 10.1 — n-Propyl alcohol 8.6 — 9 8.6 — UDMH (dimethyl- hydrazine)

5.0 — 6 7.0 —

Vinyl chloride 13.4 — 7 13.4 — Vinylidiene chloride 15.0 — 7 15.0 —

Notes:1. See 7.7.2 for the required oxygen level in equipment. 2. Data were determined by laboratory experiment conducted at atmospheric temperature and pressure. Vapor–air–inert gas sampleswere placed in explosion tubes and ignited by electric spark or pilot flame. *References: 1. J. F. Coward and G. W. Jones (1952). 2. G. W. Jones, M. G. Zabetakis, J. K. Richmond, G. S. Scott, and A. L. Furno (1954). 3. J. M. Kuchta, A. L. Furno, A. Bartkowiak, and G. H. Martindill (1968). 4. M. G. Zabetakis (1965). 5. M. G. Zabetakis and B. H. Rosen (1957). 6. Unpublished data, U.S. Bureau of Mines. 7. Unpublished data, Dow Chemical Co. 8. U.S. Bureau of Mines. 9. L. G. Britton (2002). 10. Unpublished data, Dow Chemical Co., 2002.

Proposal 306-118 Recommendation

306-31

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306

Table E.1(b) Limiting Oxidant Concentrations for Combustible Dust Suspensions When Using Nitrogen as a Diluent

Dust

Median Particle Diameter by Mass

(µm)

LOC (Volume % O2 Above Which Deflagration Can Take

Place), N2–Air Mixture

Cellulosic Materials Cellulose 22 9 Cellulose 51 11 Wood flour 27 10 Food and Feed Pea flour 25 15 Corn starch 17 9 Waste from malted barley 25 11 Rye flour 29 13 Starch derivative 24 14 Wheat flour 60 11 Coals Brown coal 42 12 Brown coal 63 12 Brown coal 66 12 Brown coal briquette dust 51 15 Bituminous coal 17 14 Plastics, Resins, Rubber Resin <63 10 Rubber powder 95 11 Polyacrylonitrile 26 10 Polyethylene, h.p. 26 10 Pharmaceuticals, Pesticides Amino- phenazone

<10 9

Methionine <10 12 Intermediate Products, Additives Barium stearate <63 13 Benzoyl peroxide 59 10 Bisphenol A 34 9 Cadmium laurate <63 14 Cadmium stearate <63 12 Calcium stearate <63 12 Methyl cellulose 70 10 Dimethyl terephthalate 27 9 Ferrocene 95 7 Bistrimethyl- silyl-urea

65 9

Naphthalic acid anhydride 16 12 2-Naphthol <30 9 Paraform- aldehyde

23 6

Pentaerythritol <10 11 Metals, Alloys Aluminum 22 5 Calcium/ aluminum alloy

22 6

Ferrosilicon magnesium alloy 17 7 Ferrosilicon alloy 21 12 Magnesium alloy 21 3 Other Inorganic Products Soot <10 12 Soot 13 12 Soot 16 12 Others Bentonite derivative 43 12

Source: R. K. Eckhoff, Dust Explosions in the Process Industries, 2003. Note: The data came from 1 m3 and 20 L chambers using strong chemical igniters.

306-32

Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 306_______________________________________________________________ 306-119 Log #CP3 Final Action: Accept(Annex F)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Gas Hazards, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:F.1 Referenced Publications. The following documents or portions thereof are referenced within this standard for informational purposes only and are thus not part of the requirements of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2.F.1.1 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2008 2012 edition.NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 1997 2008 edition.NFPA 312, Standard for Fire Protection of Vessels During Construction, Conversion, Repair, and Lay-Up, 2006 2011 edition.NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals, 2009 2012 edition.Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials, 1997 2010 edition.F.1.2 Other Publications. F.1.2.1 ACGIH Publications. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240-1634.Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents (latest edition).F.1.2.2 API Publications. American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005-4070.API 1141, Guidelines for Confined Space Entry On Board Tank Ships in the Petroleum Industry, first edition, 1994.F.1.2.3 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P. O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.ASTM D 323, Standard Method of Test for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Reid Method), 2006 2008.F.1.2.4 ICS Publications. International Chamber of Shipping, 12 Carthusian St. 38 St. Mary Axe, London, UK EC1M 6EZ EC3A 8BH. International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals (ISGOTT), fifth edition, 2006. Tanker Handbook for Deck Officers, Captain C. Baptist, eighth edition, 2000.Tanker Safety Guide (Chemicals), third edition, 2002.Tanker Safety Guide (Liquefied Gas), second edition, 1995.F.1.2.5 IMO Publications. International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London, UK SE1 7SR.Recommendations for Entering Enclosed Spaces Aboard Ships, Marine Safety Committee Circular 744, June 14, 1996.F.1.2.6 USBM Publications. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines Publications, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 6543.U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 6549.U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 6561.U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 6811.H. F. Coward and G. W. Jones, “Limits of Flammability of Gases and Vapors,” Bulletin 503, U. S. Bureau of Mines, 1952, 155 pp.M. G. Zabetakis, “Flammability Characteristics of Combustible Gases and Vapors,” Bulletin 627, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1965, 121 pp.Unpublished data, U.S. Bureau of Mines.Unpublished data, Dow Chemical Co.F.1.2.7 U.S. Government Publications. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1915, Subpart B.Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1915, Subpart D.Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1915, Subpart I.Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1915, Subpart P.Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1915, Subpart Z.Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1915.7.Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 35, Operations, Subpart 35.01.Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 71, Inspection & Certification, Subpart 71.60.Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 91, Inspection & Certification, Subpart 91.50.Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 109, Operations, Subpart G.Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 115, Inspection & Certification, Subpart G.Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 126, Inspection & Certification, Subpart A.Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 167, Public Nautical School Ships, Subpart 167.30.Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 176, Inspection & Certification, Subpart G.Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 189 Inspection & Certification, Subpart 189.50.F.1.2.8 Other Publications. R. K. Eckhoff, Dust Explosions in the Process Industries, 1991, 586.G. W. Jones, M. G. Zabetakis, J. K. Richmond, G. S. Scott, and A. L. Furno, “Research on the Flammability Characteristics of Aircraft Fuels,” Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, Technical Report 52-35, Supplement I, 1954, 57 pp.J. M. Kuchta, A. L. Furno, A. Bartkowiak, and G. H. Martindill, “Effect of Pressure and Temperature on Flammability Limits of Chlorinated Combustibles in Oxygen-Nitrogen and Nitrogen Tetroxide-Nitrogen Atmospheres,” Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 1968, p. 421.F.2 Informational References. The following documents or portions thereof are listed here as informational resources only. They are not a part of the requirements of this document.M. G. Zabetakis and B. H. Rosen, “Considerations Involved in Handling Kerosine,” Proceedings API, Vol. 37, Sec. III, 1957, p. 296.F.3 References for Extracts in Informational Sections.NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 1997 2008 edition.

Substantiation: To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects the Committee updated extracted material references to other organizations documents. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 14 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Daddura, J., Killeen, P., Manzi, P., Riva, J.