CORRELATING COMMITTEE ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS NFPA 655 …€¦ · Craig Froehling Alternate Cargill, Inc. 15407 McGinty Road West, MS 63 Wayzata, MN 55391 Principal: Chris Aiken U 03/05/2012

National Fire Protection Association

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

CORRELATING COMMITTEE ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS

NFPA 655 (F2016) Second Draft Correlating Committee Meeting May 10th, 2016

1:00 PM – 3 PM ET (Web Meeting) AGENDA

1. Meeting opening, welcome members and guests, and introductions

2. Chair’s remarks, Kevin Kreitman

3. Approve Minutes of First Draft CC meeting on October 27-29, 2015 for NFPA 61, 664,

654

4. Staff Liaison updates (Committee Roster, Schedule, and Correlating Committee Duties and Responsibilities)

5. NFPA 655 CMD-HAP Second Draft Reports a. Review and act on Public Comments and Second Revisions b. Review Correlating Committee Notes c. Review NFPA 655 Second Draft TC Final Ballot Results d. Develop Second Correlating Revisions (as appropriate) - see attached sections on Correlating Committees from Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

6. Upcoming meetings: NFPA 484 – FD Continuation Meeting is scheduled for June 21-23, 2016 at NFPA Headquarters, Quincy, MA NFPA 652 – FD Meeting is scheduled for August 8-11, 2016 at NFPA Headquarters, Quincy, MA

7. Adjournment.

Page 1 of 47

P a g e 1 | 4

CORRELATING COMMITTEE ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS

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

October 27-29, 2015

Member Attending

Kevin Kreitman – chair Yes Principal

Chris Aiken Yes Principal

Matthew Bujewski Yes Principal

John Cholin No Principal

Scott Davis No Principal

Henry Febo Yes Principal

Walter Frank Yes Principal

Robert Gombar Yes Principal

Donald Hayden No Principal

Edward LaPine Yes Principal

Art Mattos Yes Principal

Steve McAlister No Principal

Jack Osborn Yes Principal

Bill Stevenson No Principal

Jérôme Taveau No Principal

Craig Froehling Yes Alternate

Jason Krbec Yes – by phone Alternate

John LeBlanc No Alternate

Adam Morrison No Alternate

Matthew Chibbaro No Nonvoting Member

Mark Drake Yes Nonvoting Member

Paul Hart No Nonvoting Member

Tim Myers Yes Nonvoting Member

Jason Reason Yes Nonvoting Member

Mark Runyon No Nonvoting Member

William Hamilton No Alt. to Nonvoting Member

Susan Bershad Yes NFPA staff

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

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

Page 2 of 47

P a g e 2 | 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 47

P a g e 3 | 4

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

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

Page 4 of 47

P a g e 4 | 4

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

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

Page 5 of 47

Address List No PhoneCombustible Dusts CMD-AAC

Susan Bershad04/13/2016

CMD-AAC

Kevin Kreitman

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

E 10/18/2011CMD-AAC

Chris Aiken

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

U 07/29/2013

CMD-AAC

Matthew J. Bujewski

PrincipalMJB Risk Consulting9650 Mill Hill LaneSt. Louis, MO 63127

SE 03/07/2013CMD-AAC

John M. Cholin

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

SE 10/18/2011

CMD-AAC

Gregory F. Creswell

PrincipalCambridge-Lee Industries86 Tube DriveReading, PA 19605

M 04/05/2016CMD-AAC

Scott G. Davis

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

SE 03/07/2013

CMD-AAC

Henry L. Febo, Jr.

PrincipalFM GlobalEngineering Standards1151 Boston-Providence TurnpikePO Box 9102Norwood, MA 02062-9102Alternate: John A. LeBlanc

I 10/18/2011CMD-AAC

Walter L. Frank

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

SE 10/23/2013

CMD-AAC

Robert C. Gombar

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

U 04/08/2015CMD-AAC

Edward R. LaPine

PrincipalAon Fire Protection Engineering Corporation2555 East Camelback Road Suite 700Phoenix, AZ 85016

I 10/29/2012

CMD-AAC

Arthur P. Mattos, Jr.

PrincipalGlobal Risk Consultants3216 Tatting RoadMatthews, NC 28105-7181


Steve McAlister

PrincipalMichelin Tire Corporation1101 Westwood DrivePiedmont, SC 29673-7575

U 07/29/2013

CMD-AAC

Jack E. Osborn

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

M 10/18/2011CMD-AAC

Bill Stevenson

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

M 10/18/2011

1Page 6 of 47

Address List No PhoneCombustible Dusts CMD-AAC

Susan Bershad04/13/2016

CMD-AAC

Jérôme R. Taveau

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

M 07/29/2013CMD-AAC

Craig Froehling

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

U 03/05/2012

CMD-AAC

Jason Krbec

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

M 10/29/2012CMD-AAC

John A. LeBlanc

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

I 08/17/2015

CMD-AAC

Adam Morrison

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

M 03/03/2014CMD-AAC

Mark W. Drake

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

I 10/18/2011

CMD-AAC

William R. Hamilton

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

E 10/18/2011CMD-AAC

Paul F. Hart

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

I 08/09/2011

CMD-AAC

Timothy J. Myers

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


Jason P. Reason

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

SE 10/18/2011

CMD-AAC

Mark L. Runyon

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

I 07/29/2013CMD-AAC

Susan Bershad

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

04/16/2014

2Page 7 of 47

2016 FALL REVISION CYCLE *Public Input Dates may vary according to standards and schedules for Revision Cycles may change. Please check the NFPA Website for the most up‐to‐date information on Public Input Closing Dates and schedules at

www.nfpa.org/document # (i.e. www.nfpa.org/101) and click on the Next Edition tab.

Process Stage

Process Step

Dates for TC

Dates forTC with

CC Public Input Closing Date* 1/5/15 1/5/15

Final Date for TC First Draft Meeting 6/15/15 3/16/15

Public Input Posting of First Draft and TC Ballot 8/3/15 4/27/15

Stage Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot 8/24/15 5/18/15

(First Draft) Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot ‐ recirc 8/31/15 5/25/15

Posting of First Draft for CC Meeting 6/1/15

Final date for CC First Draft Meeting 7/13/15

Posting of First Draft and CC Ballot 8/3/15

Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot 8/24/15

Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot ‐ recirc 8/31/15

Post First Draft Report for Public Comment 9/7/15 9/7/15

Public Comment closing date 11/16/15 11/16/15

Final Date to Publish Notice of Consent Standards (Standards that received no Comments)

11/30/15 11/30/15

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

12/14/15 12/14/15

Final date for TC Second Draft Meeting 5/2/16 1/25/16

Comment Posting of Second Draft and TC Ballot 6/13/16 3/7/16

Stage Final date for Receipt of TC Second Draft ballot 7/5/16 3/28/16

(Second Final date for receipt of TC Second Draft ballot ‐ recirc 7/11/16 4/4/16

Draft) Posting of Second Draft for CC Meeting 4/11/16

Final date for CC Second Draft Meeting 5/23/16

Posting of Second Draft for CC Ballot 6/13/16

Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot 7/5/16

Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot ‐ recirc 7/11/16

Post Second Draft Report for NITMAM Review 7/18/16 7/18/16

Tech Session Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 8/22/16 8/22/16

Preparation Posting of Certified Amending Motions (CAMs) and Consent Standards

10/17/16 10/17/16

(& Issuance) Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards 11/1/16 11/1/16

SC Issuance Date for Consent Standards 11/11/16 11/11/16

Tech Session Association Meeting for Standards with CAMs 6/4‐7/17 6/4‐7/17

Appeals and Appeal Closing Date for Standards with CAMs 6/27/17 6/27/17

Issuance SC Issuance Date for Standards with CAMs 8/10/17 8/10/17

Approved___ October 30, 2012 Revised________________________ Page 8 of 47

Combustible Dusts Correlating Committee Review Guidelines

• First Revision - Review of material

o Review of Public inputs which are rejected (3.4.3 g) o Review of First Revisions which have negative votes (3.4.3 g) o Review of First Revisions which may conflict within or between NFPA Standards

(3.4.3 g) o Review of First Revisions which may result in conflicts between overlapping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 9 of 47

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

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

Document Scope (NFPA 91)

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

COMBUSTIBLE METALS (CMD-CMM) 484

Committee Scope

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

Committee Responsibility

Standard for Combustible Metals (NFPA 484)

Document Scope

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

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

1.1.2 Combustible Powder or Dust.

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

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

Page 10 of 47

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STANDARD ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS (CMD-FUN) 652

Committee Scope

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

Document Scope

This standard shall provide the basic principles of and requirements for identifying and managing the fire and explosion hazards of combustible dusts and particulate solids. Committee Responsibility Standard on Combustible Dusts (NFPA 652)

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

Committee Scope

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

Committee Responsibility Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 91)

Page 11 of 47

Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (NFPA 655) Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 654)


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

Page 12 of 47

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

Committee Scope

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


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


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

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

Committee Scope

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


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

Document Scope

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

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

Page 13 of 47

Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 655-2015 [ Sections 1.1.2, 1.1.3 ]

Sections 1.1.2, 1.1.3

1.1.2

This standard shall not apply to the mining of sulfur, recovery of sulfur from process streams, or transportation of sulfur.

1.1.3

This standard shall not apply to the recovery of sulfur from process streams, such as sour gas processing or oil refinery operations,and all its encompassed processes and operations, which include block melting, degassing, and forming.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved

CC_Note_1_655.pdf 655_CCNote1

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 1 in the First Draft Report on First Revision No. 13.

The correlating committee would like the technical committee to look at this provision again with the intent of making it clearer. It is not clear to the correlating committee what the intent was in excluding sour gas processing and refinery operations from the scope of the document. This comment applies to section 1.1.2 as well with regards to the recovery of sulfur from process streams.

Related Item

First Revision No. 13-NFPA 655-2015 [New Section after 1.1.2]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: CC on CMD-AAC

Organization: NFPA CC ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Nov 17 14:13:39 EST 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeAction:

Rejected

Resolution: The committee reviewed the CC note and decided that the original statement was clear and appropriate. The TC declined tomake any changes to the scope of the document.

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

1 of 6 2/22/2016 9:59 AM

Page 14 of 47

Correlating Committee Note No. 1-NFPA 655-2015 [ New Section after 1.1.2 ]


Submitter Full Name: SUSAN BERSHAD

Organization: NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Jun 12 12:04:46 EDT 2015

Committee Statement and Meeting Notes

CommitteeStatement:

The correlating committee would like the technical committee to look at this provision again with theintent of making it clearer. It is not clear to the correlating committee what the intent was in excludingsour gas processing and refinery operations from the scope of the document. This comment applies tosection 1.1.2 as well with regards to the recovery of sulfur from process streams.

Ballot Results

This item has passed ballot

15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

12 Affirmative All

0 Affirmative with Comments

0 Negative with Comments

0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cholin, John M.

Frank, Walter L.

Hayden, Donald

Affirmative All

Aiken, Chris

Bujewski, Matthew J.

Davis, Scott G.

Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Kreitman, Kevin

LaPine, Edward R.

Mattos, Jr., Arthur P.

McAlister, Steve

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

1 of 2 11/17/2015 12:32 PM

Page 15 of 47

Osborn, Jack E.

Stevenson, Bill

Taveau, Jérôme R.

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

2 of 2 11/17/2015 12:32 PM

Page 16 of 47

Public Comment No. 1-NFPA 655-2015 [ Chapter 2 ]

Chapter 2 Referenced Publications

2.1 General.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this standard and shall be considered part of therequirements of this document.

2.2 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems, 2017 edition.

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

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

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

NFPA 70® , National Electrical Code®, 2017 edition.

NFPA 72® , National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2016 edition.

NFPA 80, Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives, 2016 edition.

NFPA 101® , Life Safety Code®, 2015 edition.

NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction, 2015 edition.

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

NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2017 edition.

NFPA 600, Standard on Facility Fire Brigades, 2015 edition.

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

NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems, 2017 edition.

NFPA 2113, Standard on Selection, Care, Use, and Maintenance of Flame-Resistant Garments for Protection of Industrial PersonnelAgainst Short-Duration Thermal Exposures from Fire, 2015 edition.

2.3 Other Publications.

2.3.1 ISA Publications.

The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, 67 Alexander Drive, Research International Society of Automation ,67 T.W. Alexander Drive, PO Box 12277, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

ANSI/ISA 84.00.01, Functional Safety: Safety Instrumental Systems for the Process Industry Sector, 2004 edition.

2.3.2 U.S. Government Publications.

U.S. Government Printing Publishing Office, 732 North Capital Street, NW, Washington , DC 20402 20410-0001 .

Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, 1910.242(b).

2.3.3 Other Publications.

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

2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections.



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


Referenced current SDO names, and addresses.

Related Item

Public Input No. 3-NFPA 655-2014 [Chapter 2]


Submitter Full Name: Aaron Adamczyk

Organization: [ Not Specified ]


2 of 6 2/22/2016 9:59 AM

Page 17 of 47

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Oct 13 00:09:14 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

Committee Action: Accepted

Resolution: SR-3-NFPA 655-2016

Statement: Referenced current SDO names, and addresses.


3 of 6 2/22/2016 9:59 AM

Page 18 of 47

Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 655-2015 [ Section No. 5.5.2.1 ]

5.5.2.1

The vent systems on enclosed sulfur tanks and sulfur pits shall be designed to allow the required snuffing steam rate or sealing steamrate to vent without overpressuring the enclosure.

5.5.2.1.1

To prevent the overpressure of the enclosure, empirical data (such as pressure readings or steam observed billowing from ports orvents) that demonstrates the ability to create a positive pressure within existing sulfur tanks or sulfur pits can be used in lieu of therecommended design sealing steam flow rate for new installations specified in Section 5.5.1.


As mentioned previously in public comment by others, the use of excessive sealing steam or snuffing steam has the potential to overpressure the enclosure and create new hazards. Depending on the location and pressure of the sealing steam source(s) and the vent(s), the flow rate of sealing steam observed to be required could be less than the theoretical flow rate calculated.

Related Item

First Revision No. 5-NFPA 655-2015 [Section No. 5.5]


Submitter Full Name: Gregory Joppa

Organization: Flint Hills Resources

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Oct 20 13:57:05 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeAction:

Rejected

Resolution: The committee rejected the comment because it was not submitted as enforceable text. In addition, the technical committeedid not think that this material added anything to the requirements and did not understand the intent of the submitter.


4 of 6 2/22/2016 9:59 AM

Page 19 of 47

Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 655-2015 [ Section No. A.4.4.2 ]

A.4.4.2

Refer to NFPA 499. Table A.4.4.2 provides guidance for area electrical classification.

Table A.4.4.2 Guidance for Area Electrical Classification

Depth of DustAccumulation (in.) Frequency Housekeeping Requirement Area Electrical Classification

Negligiblea N/A N/A Unclassified (general purpose)

Negligible to < 1⁄32b Infrequentc Cleanup during same shift. Unclassified (general purpose)

Negligible to < 1⁄32b Continuous/frequentd

Clean as necessary to maintain an

average accumulation below 1⁄64 in.eUnclassified; however, electrical

enclosures should be dusttight. f, g

1⁄32 to 1⁄8 Infrequentc Cleanup during same shift.Unclassified; however, electrical

enclosures should be dusttight. f, g

1⁄32 to 1⁄8 Continuous/frequentdClean as necessary to maintain anaverage accumulation below 1⁄16 in.

Class II, Division 2

> 1⁄8 Infrequentc Immediately shut down and clean. Class II, Division 2

> 1⁄8 Continuous/frequentdClean at frequency appropriate to minimize

accumulation.Class II, Division 1

For SI units, 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

Note: This table does not apply to Class III materials.

aSurface color just discernible under the dust layer.

b 1⁄32 in. is approximately the thickness of a typical paper clip.

cEpisodic release of dust occurring not more than about two or three times per year.

dEpisodic release of dust occurring more than about three times per year or continuous release resulting in stated accumulationoccurring in approximately a 24-hour period.

eIt has been observed that a thickness of about 1⁄64 in. of a low-density dust is sufficient to yield a small puffy cloud with eachfootstep.

fFor example, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 12 or better. Note: Ordinary equipment that is not heatproducing, such as junction boxes, can be significantly sealed against dust penetration by the use of silicone-type caulking. This canbe considered in areas where fugitive dust is released at a slow rate and tends to accumulate over a long period of time.

gGuidance to be applied for existing facilities. For new facilities, it is recommended that the electrical classification be at least ClassII, Division 2.

[654: Table A.6.5.2]

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved

CC_Note_2_655.pdf 664_CCNote2


NOTE: This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No 2 in the First Draft Report on First Revision No. 25.

The correlating committee would like the technical committee to review the use of this table for consistency with 654. The annex material in 654 contains additional material that provides background for the table. The addition of the footnote regarding class III materials does not make sense for 655 and should be reviewed.

Related Item

First Revision No. 25-NFPA 655-2015 [Section No. A.4.4.2]


Submitter Full Name: CC on CMD-AAC

Organization: NFPA CC ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS

Street Address:


5 of 6 2/22/2016 9:59 AM

Page 20 of 47

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Nov 17 13:31:27 EST 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeAction:

Rejected

Resolution: The technical committee rejected this comment from the correlating committee. They do not feel that the additional annexmaterial from 654 needs to be added here and the statement regarding Class III does not need to be removed.


6 of 6 2/22/2016 9:59 AM

Page 21 of 47

Second Revision No. 3-NFPA 655-2016 [ Chapter 2 ]

Chapter 2 Referenced Publications

2.1 General.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this standard and shall be considered part of therequirements of this document.

2.2 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.


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



NFPA 70® , National Electrical Code®, 2017 edition.

NFPA 72® , National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2016 edition.


NFPA 101® , Life Safety Code®, 2015 edition.


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

NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2017 edition.




NFPA 2113, Standard on Selection, Care, Use, and Maintenance of Flame-Resistant Garments for Protection of Industrial PersonnelAgainst Short-Duration Thermal Exposures from Fire, 2015 edition.

2.3 Other Publications.

2.3.1 ISA Publications.

The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, 67 Alexander Drive, Research International Society of Automation ,67 T.W. Alexander Drive, PO Box 12277, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

ANSI/ISA 84.00.01, Functional Safety: Safety Instrumental Systems for the Process Industry Sector, 2004 edition.

2.3.2 U.S. Government Publications.

U.S. Government Printing Publishing Office, 732 North Capital Street, NW, Washington , DC 20402 20410-0001 .

Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, 1910.242(b).

2.3.3 Other Publications.

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

2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections.



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


Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad


Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Jan 06 14:00:32 EST 2016


1 of 8 2/4/2016 10:30 AM

Page 22 of 47

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Referenced current SDO names, and addresses.

Response Message:

Public Comment No. 1-NFPA 655-2015 [Chapter 2]


2 of 8 2/4/2016 10:30 AM

Page 23 of 47

Second Revision No. 4-NFPA 655-2016 [ Chapter B ]

Annex B Dust Layer Characterization and Precautions

This annex is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only.


3 of 8 2/4/2016 10:30 AM

Page 24 of 47

B.1

The threshold mass equations in 4.2.5 provide a means to determine whether the normal accumulation of combustible dust in thebuilding/room requires the addition of a safeguard for workers in the immediate area or a safeguard for workers remote from theimmediate area. This is similar to the concept of maximum allowable quantity in control areas in building codes. Above the maximumquantity, the area is considered hazardous and additional safeguards are required. NFPA 5000, Chapter 6, indicates that wherecombustible dusts are stored, used, or generated in a manner creating a severe fire or explosion hazard the building/room isconsidered to contain high hazard Level 2 contents.

This standard acknowledges that accumulation of combustible dust outside of equipment can present a severe hazard when thequantity exceeds certain thresholds. When the threshold is exceeded, this standard imposes physical barriers and explosion ventingto limit and control the explosion hazard as well as personal protective equipment and fire separations to address the flash-firehazard.

In addition to the many process design constraints intended to limit ignition potential, the use of proper electrical equipment isaddressed separately. It is important to recognize that the criteria for requiring electrically classified equipment are different from thethresholds for flash-fire or explosion hazard. As an example, in a single room the total dust accumulation could be large enough thatthe entire room is deemed an explosion hazard area, yet if the dust accumulation is evenly distributed, it is possible that electricallyclassified equipment is not needed. Conversely, there could be an isolated area with thick layers of dust that would require theinstallation of electrically classified equipment, and yet the room, in total, does not contain sufficient dust accumulation to exceed thethreshold mass.

The user can apply Equation 4.2.5.1 and Equation 4.2.5.2 to separately determine if an explosion hazard or a flash-fire hazardexists from total accumulated dust mass in the building/room. If so, then safeguards are required for workers remote from the area orin the immediate area, respectively.

The basic equations in 4.2.5.1 and 4.2.5.2 do not require measurement of any physical or combustibility properties for application.They are independent of those properties and offer a generally conservative approach. The only variables are the total building/roomfloor area and the general height of the building/room, which provides a volume correction. In practice, the user can weigh theamount of accumulated dust in various areas outside of equipment to estimate the total dust mass in the building/room. If the dustmass exceeds the threshold determined according to 4.2.5.1, then the area is a dust explosion hazard area. If the dust massexceeds the threshold determined according to 4.2.5.2, then the area is a dust flash-fire hazard area. Depending on building height,the area of dust accumulation could be a dust explosion hazard area, a dust flash-fire hazard area, or both.

An example application is a 10,764 ft2 (1000 m2) building having a peaked roof with eave height of 30 ft (9 m) and peak height of 33ft (10 m). The owner/user expects only minor dust accumulation near certain activities and has provided electrically classifiedequipment in these limited areas. When operations began, a routine housekeeping schedule was documented and instituted tominimize dust accumulation. After 2 months of operation, the owner/user weighs dust samples from six different areas in the plant,as listed below in Table B.1.

Table B.1 Example Data Table

Floor Area Above-Floor Area Sampled Area

Sampled

Weight Estimated Weight

Section Name m2 ft2 m2 ft2 m2 ft2 kg lb kg lb

Bag unloading 20 215 — — 2 22 0.5 1.1 5 11

Processing 600 6458 — — 4 43 0.05 0.011 7.5 16.5

Packaging 180 1938 — — 3 32 0.65 1.43 39 86

Shipping 200 2153 — — 4 43 0.05 0.011 2.5 5.5

Bar joist — — 50 538 2 22 0.1 0.22 2.5 5.5

Mezzanine — — 105 1130 3 32 0.1 0.22 3.5 7.7

Total 1000 10764 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60 132

Based on the weighed samples, the owner/user multiplies the mass per unit area by the estimated floor area for the samples andestimates the weight of dust in each section of the plant. As a result, the owner/user determines that practicable housekeeping hasallowed the dust to accumulate to about 132 lb (60 kg) over the building. According to Equations 4.2.5.1 and 4.2.5.2, the thresholdmasses are 209 lb (95 kg) for an explosion hazard area and 110 lb (50 kg) for a flash-fire hazard area:

[B.1]

Thus practicable housekeeping has resulted in too much dust without additional safeguards for the flash-fire hazard, and theowner/user would have to consider Chapter 8 to determine appropriate PPE needs or modify equipment to better contain the dust. Inthis example, current housekeeping is sufficient to discount an explosion hazard. The user could decide to proceed with the results ofthe basic equations without further evaluation or to use the method in 4.2.5.3.

Since the original design of the building presumed which areas would experience dust accumulation outside equipment, theowner/user should review the electrical area classification against the actual locations of accumulations, based on NFPA 499.


4 of 8 2/4/2016 10:30 AM

Page 25 of 47

B.2


5 of 8 2/4/2016 10:30 AM

Page 26 of 47

The dust accumulation is a product of the actual layer depth and the total area of accumulation. The limitation in 4.2.5.3.3 isexpressed as a product of the layer depth criterion and a percentage of the footprint area of the room or building. Within a singleroom or building, areas of significant dust accumulation could be contiguous or separated. Where they are separated, the separateaccumulations are combined and compared to the permissible dust accumulation. The layer depth criterion can be increased for aspecific dust when the bulk density is known.

For rooms or buildings where dust accumulations are limited to a small area, one way to determine if the actual dust accumulation issufficient to result in a dust deflagration hazard is to ratio the actual dust accumulation to the permissible dust accumulation. If theratio exceeds 1, then a dust deflagration hazard exists in the subject building or room.

Surfaces where dust could settle include floors, beam flanges, piping, ductwork, equipment, suspended ceilings, light fixtures andwalls. Because dust adhering to walls and vertical surfaces can be easily dislodged, particular attention should be given to thesesurfaces.

When the total volume of dust accumulations is being determined, accumulation areas where the underlying surface colors arereadily discernible can be excluded.

Example 1: A single floor accumulation area in a small portion of a 25 ft by 40 ft (7.62 m by 12.2 m) room. The dust has a bulk

density of 75 lb/ft3 (1200 kg/m3).

Layer depth criterion = 1⁄32 in. (0.8 mm)

Room footprint area = 1000 ft2 (93 m2)

Actual accumulation area = 20 ft2 (1.86 m2)

Average layer depth in accumulation area = 1⁄16 in. (1.6 mm)

[B.2a]

Since the ratio is less than or equal to 1, a dust deflagration hazard does not exist in the room. Where the actual accumulation areais less than 5 percent of the room footprint, the layer thickness can be greater without resulting in a dust deflagration hazard.

Example 2: A single floor accumulation area in a portion of a 25 ft by 40 ft (7.62 m by 12.2 m) room. The dust has a bulk density of

30 lb/ft3 (481 kg/m3). First adjust the layer depth criterion for the reduced bulk density:

[B.2b]



Average layer depth in accumulation area = 1⁄32 in. (0.8 mm)

[B.2c]

Since the ratio is less than or equal to 1, a dust deflagration hazard does not exist in the room. A dust with a bulk density less than

the basis of 75 lb/ft3 (1200 kg/m3) can accumulate to 1⁄32 in. (0.8 mm) layer depth in more than 5 percent of the room footprint areaand still not present a dust deflagration hazard.

Example 3: Multiple floors and elevated accumulation areas with different layer depths for each area. The room is 100 ft by 100 ft

(30.5 m by 30.5 m). For rooms less than 20,000 ft2 (1858 m2), the limitation is based on a maximum of 5 percent of the footprint

area. The dust has a bulk density of 30 lb/ft3 (481 kg/m3). First, adjust the layer depth criterion for the reduced bulk density:

[B.2d]

Room footprint area = 10,000 ft2 (929 m2)

[B.2e]

Since the ratio is less than or equal to 1, a dust deflagration hazard does not exist in the room. There could be more separatedaccumulation areas than are listed in Table B.2, and all significant areas should be included. Note that areas where dust layers aresuch that the underlying surface colors are readily discernible would not be included.

Where there is a single accumulation area or the actual layer depth is the same over all accumulation areas, Figure B.2 indicates theactual layer depth that results in a dust deflagration hazard.

Table B.2 Multiple Accumulation Areas for Example 3

Accumulation

Location

Accumulation

Area (ft2)

Average

Layer Depth (in.) Accumulation (ft2 · in.)


6 of 8 2/4/2016 10:30 AM

Page 27 of 47

Accumulation

Location

Accumulation

Area (ft2)

Average

Layer Depth (in.) Accumulation (ft2 · in.)

Floor 50 1⁄16 3.1

Beam surfaces 500 1⁄32 15.6

Equipment surfaces 100 1⁄8 12.5

Note: For SI units, 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 ft2 = 0.093 m2.

Figure B.2 Dust Deflagration Hazard Limitation — Average Layer Depth with Reduced Accumulation Area for Buildings orRooms.

B.3

While the threshold mass equations consider all of the dust mass throughout the building, it is not anticipated that the dust will beevenly distributed. Rather, there will be localized areas of accumulation where fugitive dust is not completely captured. If thethreshold mass of dust were actually evenly distributed, it would typically be an extremely thin layer. Such a layer would be too thin tocreate a hazard because the entrainment fraction would be much smaller, and only a small portion of the dust mass would actuallybe involved in the event. The inclusion of all accumulated dust mass is conservative in this respect.

Where processing areas are segregated by walls and the entries are self-closing, this can be used to limit the area where the userhas to apply safeguards against a flash-fire hazard. Similarly, where segregating walls and entries are also pressure resistant, thiscan be used to limit the area where the user has to apply safeguards against an explosion hazard. Where a multifloor building iseffectively segregated by intervening floors, explosion and flash-fire hazards can be evaluated on a floor-by-floor basis.

Where there are open mezzanines above a floor level, the accumulated dust on these levels is added to that on the main levelwithout increasing the floor area.

When the total dust mass in a building or room is being determined, due consideration should be given to dust that adheres to walls,since it is easily dislodged. Attention and consideration should also be given to other projections, such as light fixtures, that canprovide surfaces for dust accumulation.

Dust collection equipment should be monitored to ensure that it is operating effectively. For example, dust collectors that use bagsoperate most effectively between limited pressure drops of 2 in. to 5 in. of water (0.50 kPa to 1.24 kPa). An excessive decrease orlow drop in pressure indicates insufficient coating to trap dust.


Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad


Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Jan 06 15:42:57 EST 2016

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: This second revision is to correct the following errors in the equations in Annex B.

B.1 - second line - right hand side of the equation is missing the term for height. Should read -

0.01 x 1000 x 9.5 =95 kg

B.2c - In the denominator of the equation - 0.78 should be 0.078

B.2e - Same change as above - 0.78 should be 0.078

Response Message:


7 of 8 2/4/2016 10:30 AM

Page 28 of 47


8 of 8 2/4/2016 10:30 AM

Page 29 of 47

Correlating Committee Note No. 1-NFPA 655-2015 [ New Section after 1.1.2 ]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The correlating committee would like the technical committee to look at this provision again with the intent of making it clearer.It is not clear to the correlating committee what the intent was in excluding sour gas processing and refinery operations fromthe scope of the document. This comment applies to section 1.1.2 as well with regards to the recovery of sulfur from processstreams.

First Revision No. 13-NFPA 655-2015 [New Section after 1.1.2]

Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

12 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cholin, John M.

Frank, Walter L.

Hayden, Donald

Affirmative All

Aiken, Chris


Davis, Scott G.

Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Kreitman, Kevin

LaPine, Edward R.


McAlister, Steve

Osborn, Jack E.

Stevenson, Bill

Taveau, Jérôme R.


1 of 2 4/13/2016 2:50 PM

Page 30 of 47

Correlating Committee Note No. 2-NFPA 655-2015 [ Section No. A.4.4.2 ]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The correlating committee would like the technical committee to review the use of this table for consistency with 654. Theannex material in 654 contains additional material that provides background for the table. The addition of the footnoteregarding class III materials does not make sense for 655 and should be reviewed.

First Revision No. 25-NFPA 655-2015 [Section No. A.4.4.2]

Ballot Results


15 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

12 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Cholin, John M.

Frank, Walter L.

Hayden, Donald

Affirmative All

Aiken, Chris


Davis, Scott G.

Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Gombar, Robert C.

Kreitman, Kevin

LaPine, Edward R.


McAlister, Steve

Osborn, Jack E.

Stevenson, Bill

Taveau, Jérôme R.


2 of 2 4/13/2016 2:50 PM

Page 31 of 47

National Fire Protection Association

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

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Technical Committee on Handling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, and Gases FROM: Kelly Carey, Project Administrator DATE: March 8, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 655 Second Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (F2016)

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

30 Members Eligible to Vote 3 Members Not Returned (Jennett, Roberts, Ural) 27 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions (w/ comment: Parsons, Runyon) 0 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions 0 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each revision.

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

Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.

Page 32 of 47

3/8/2016 National Fire Protection Association Report

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp 2/14

Second Revision No. 3NFPA 6552016 [ Chapter 2 ]

Chapter 2 Referenced Publications2.1 General.The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within thisstandard and shall be considered part of the requirements of this document.

2.2 NFPA Publications.National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 021697471.


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



NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code®, 2017 edition.

NFPA 72®, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2016 edition.


NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, 2015 edition.


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

NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment,2017 edition.


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


NFPA 2113, Standard on Selection, Care, Use, and Maintenance of FlameResistantGarments for Protection of Industrial Personnel Against ShortDuration ThermalExposures from Fire , 2015 edition.

2.3 Other Publications.2.3.1 ISA Publications.The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, 67 AlexanderDrive International Society of Automation, 67 T.W. Alexander Drive, PO Box 12277 ,Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

ANSI/ISA 84.00.01, Functional Safety: Safety Instrumental Systems for the ProcessIndustry Sector, 2004 edition.

Page 33 of 47



2.3.2 U.S. Government Publications.U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Publishing Office, 732 NorthCapital Street, NW, Washington DC 204010001.

Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910. 242(b).

2.3.3 Other Publications.MerriamWebster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, MerriamWebster, Inc.,Springfield, MA, 2003.

2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections.NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2013 edition.

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

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


Submitter Full Name:Susan BershadOrganization: [ Not Specified ]Street Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Wed Jan 06 14:00:32 EST 2016

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Referenced current SDO names, and addresses.Response Message:

Public Comment No. 1NFPA 6552015 [Chapter 2]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters3 Not Returned25 Affirmative All2 Affirmative with Comments0 Negative with Comments0 Abstention

Not ReturnedJennett, Jerry J.

Roberts, James L.

Page 34 of 47



Ural, Erdem A.

Affirmative AllChastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Dastidar, Ashok Ghose

Desautels, Burke

DiLucido, Tony

Ebadat, Vahid

Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Frank, Walter L.

Greeson, Stephen T.

Holcomb, Mark L.

Koch, James F.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pehrson, Richard

Reason, Jason P.

Reza, Ali

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Stevenson, Bill

Sutton, Jeffery W.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Taylor, Robert D.

Thomas, Tony L.

Walters, Michael

Weber, Jr., Harold H.

Affirmative with CommentParsons, Philip J.

no comment

Runyon, Mark L.

Good changes

Page 35 of 47



Second Revision No. 4NFPA 6552016 [ Chapter B ]

Annex B Dust Layer Characterization and PrecautionsThis annex is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included forinformational purposes only.

Page 36 of 47



B.1

The threshold mass equations in 4.2.5 provide a means to determine whether thePage 37 of 47



The threshold mass equations in 4.2.5 provide a means to determine whether thenormal accumulation of combustible dust in the building/room requires the addition of asafeguard for workers in the immediate area or a safeguard for workers remote from theimmediate area. This is similar to the concept of maximum allowable quantity in controlareas in building codes. Above the maximum quantity, the area is considered hazardousand additional safeguards are required. Chapter 6 of NFPA 5000 indicates that wherecombustible dusts are stored, used, or generated in a manner creating a severe fire orexplosion hazard the building/room is considered to contain high hazard Level 2contents.

This standard acknowledges that accumulation of combustible dust outside ofequipment can present a severe hazard when the quantity exceeds certain thresholds.When the threshold is exceeded, this standard imposes physical barriers and explosionventing to limit and control the explosion hazard as well as personal protectiveequipment and fire separations to address the flashfire hazard.

In addition to the many process design constraints intended to limit ignition potential, theuse of proper electrical equipment is addressed separately. It is important to recognizethat the criteria for requiring electrically classified equipment are different from thethresholds for flashfire or explosion hazard. As an example, in a single room the totaldust accumulation could be large enough that the entire room is deemed an explosionhazard area, yet if the dust accumulation is evenly distributed, it is possible thatelectrically classified equipment is not needed. Conversely, there could be an isolatedarea with thick layers of dust that would require the installation of electrically classifiedequipment, and yet the room, in total, does not contain sufficient dust accumulation toexceed the threshold mass.

The user can apply Equation 4.2.5.1 and Equation 4.2.5.2 to separately determine if anexplosion hazard or a flashfire hazard exists from total accumulated dust mass in thebuilding/room. If so, then safeguards are required for workers remote from the area or inthe immediate area, respectively.

The basic equations in 4.2.5.1 and 4.2.5.2 do not require measurement of any physicalor combustibility properties for application. They are independent of those properties andoffer a generally conservative approach. The only variables are the total building/roomfloor area and the general height of the building/room, which provides a volumecorrection. In practice, the user can weigh the amount of accumulated dust in variousareas outside of equipment to estimate the total dust mass in the building/room. If thedust mass exceeds the threshold determined according to 4.2.5.1, then the area is adust explosion hazard area. If the dust mass exceeds the threshold determinedaccording to 4.2.5.2, then the area is a dust flashfire hazard area. Depending onbuilding height, the area of dust accumulation could be a dust explosion hazard area, adust flashfire hazard area, or both.

An example application is a 10,764 ft2 (1000 m2) building having a peaked roof witheave height of 30 ft (9 m) and peak height of 33 ft (10 m). The owner/user expects onlyminor dust accumulation near certain activities and has provided electrically classifiedequipment in these limited areas. When operations began, a routine housekeepingschedule was documented and instituted to minimize dust accumulation. After 2 monthsof operation, the owner/user weighs dust samples from six different areas in the plant,as listed below in Table B.1.

Table B.1 Example Data Table

FloorArea

AboveFloorArea

SampledArea

SampledWeight

EstimatedWeight

SectionName m2 ft2 m2 ft2 m2 ft2 kg lb kg lbBag

Page 38 of 47



unloading 20 215 — — 2 22 0.5 1.1 5 11

Processing 600 6458 — — 4 43 0.050.011 7.5 16.5Packaging 180 1938 — — 3 32 0.651.43 39 86Shipping 200 2153 — — 4 43 0.050.011 2.5 5.5Bar joist — — 50 538 2 22 0.1 0.22 2.5 5.5Mezzanine — — 105 1130 3 32 0.1 0.22 3.5 7.7Total 100010764 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60 132

Based on the weighed samples, the owner/user multiplies the mass per unit area by theestimated floor area for the samples and estimates the weight of dust in each section ofthe plant. As a result, the owner/user determines that practicable housekeeping hasallowed the dust to accumulate to about 132 lb (60 kg) over the building. According toEquations 4.2.5.1 and 4.2.5.2, the threshold masses are 209 lb (95 kg) for an explosionhazard area and 110 lb (50 kg) for a flashfire hazard area:

[B.1]

Thus practicable housekeeping has resulted in too much dust without additionalsafeguards for the flashfire hazard, and the owner/user would have to consider Chapter8 to determine appropriate PPE needs or modify equipment to better contain the dust. Inthis example, current housekeeping is sufficient to discount an explosion hazard. Theuser could decide to proceed with the results of the basic equations without furtherevaluation or to use the method in 4.2.5.3.

Since the original design of the building presumed which areas would experience dustaccumulation outside equipment, the owner/user should review the electrical areaclassification against the actual locations of accumulations, based on NFPA 499.

DELETEDDELETED

Page 39 of 47



B.2

Page 40 of 47



The dust accumulation is a product of the actual layer depth and the total area ofaccumulation. The limitation in 4.2.5.3.3 is expressed as a product of the layer depthcriterion and a percentage of the footprint area of the room or building. Within a singleroom or building, areas of significant dust accumulation could be contiguous orseparated. Where they are separated, the separate accumulations are combined andcompared to the permissible dust accumulation. The layer depth criterion can beincreased for a specific dust when the bulk density is known.

For rooms or buildings where dust accumulations are limited to a small area, one way todetermine if the actual dust accumulation is sufficient to result in a dust deflagrationhazard is to ratio the actual dust accumulation to the permissible dust accumulation. Ifthe ratio exceeds 1, then a dust deflagration hazard exists in the subject building orroom.

Surfaces where dust could settle include floors, beam flanges, piping, ductwork,equipment, suspended ceilings, light fixtures and walls. Because dust adhering to wallsand vertical surfaces can be easily dislodged, particular attention should be given tothese surfaces.

When the total volume of dust accumulations is being determined, accumulation areaswhere the underlying surface colors are readily discernible can be excluded.

Example 1: A single floor accumulation area in a small portion of a 25 ft by 40 ft (7.62 mby 12.2 m) room. The dust has a bulk density of 75 lb/ft3 (1200 kg/m3).

Layer depth criterion = 1∕32 in. (0.8 mm)



Average layer depth in accumulation area = 1∕16 in. (1.6 mm)

[B.2a]

Since the ratio is less than or equal to 1, a dust deflagration hazard does not exist in theroom. Where the actual accumulation area is less than 5 percent of the room footprint,the layer thickness can be greater without resulting in a dust deflagration hazard.

Example 2: A single floor accumulation area in a portion of a 25 ft by 40 ft (7.62 m by12.2 m) room. The dust has a bulk density of 30 lb/ft3 (481 kg/m3). First adjust the layerdepth criterion for the reduced bulk density:

[B.2b]



Average layer depth in accumulation area = 1∕32 in. (0.8 mm)

[B.2c]

Since the ratio is less than or equal to 1, a dust deflagration hazard does not exist in theroom. A dust with a bulk density less than the basis of 75 lb/ft3 (1200 kg/m3) canaccumulate to 1∕32 in. (0.8 mm) layer depth in more than 5 percent of the room footprint

DELETED

Page 41 of 47



area and still not present a dust deflagration hazard.

Example 3: Multiple floors and elevated accumulation areas with different layer depthsfor each area. The room is 100 ft by 100 ft (30.5 m by 30.5 m). For rooms less than20,000 ft2 (1858 m2), the limitation is based on a maximum of 5 percent of the footprintarea. The dust has a bulk density of 30 lb/ft3 (481 kg/m3). First, adjust the layer depthcriterion for the reduced bulk density:

[B.2d]

Room footprint area = 10,000 ft2 (929 m2)

[B.2e]

Since the ratio is less than or equal to 1, a dust deflagration hazard does not exist in theroom. There could be more separated accumulation areas than are listed in Table B.2,and all significant areas should be included. Note that areas where dust layers are suchthat the underlying surface colors are readily discernible would not be included.

Where there is a single accumulation area or the actual layer depth is the same over allaccumulation areas, Figure B.2 indicates the actual layer depth that results in a dustdeflagration hazard.

Table B.2 Multiple Accumulation Areas for Example 3

AccumulationLocation

Accumulation

Area (ft2)Average

Layer Depth (in.) Accumulation (ft2 · in.)Floor 50 1∕16 3.1Beam surfaces 500 1∕32 15.6Equipment surfaces 100 1∕8 12.5

Note: For SI units, 1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 ft2 = 0.093 m2.

Figure B.2 Dust Deflagration Hazard Limitation — Average Layer Depth withReduced Accumulation Area for Buildings or Rooms.

DELETED

Page 42 of 47



B.3 While the threshold mass equations consider all of the dust mass throughout thebuilding, it is not anticipated that the dust will be evenly distributed. Rather, there will belocalized areas of accumulation where fugitive dust is not completely captured. If thethreshold mass of dust were actually evenly distributed, it would typically be anextremely thin layer. Such a layer would be too thin to create a hazard because theentrainment fraction would be much smaller, and only a small portion of the dust masswould actually be involved in the event. The inclusion of all accumulated dust mass isconservative in this respect.

Where processing areas are segregated by walls and the entries are selfclosing, thiscan be used to limit the area where the user has to apply safeguards against a flashfirehazard. Similarly, where segregating walls and entries are also pressure resistant, thiscan be used to limit the area where the user has to apply safeguards against anexplosion hazard. Where a multifloor building is effectively segregated by interveningfloors, explosion and flashfire hazards can be evaluated on a floorbyfloor basis.

Where there are open mezzanines above a floor level, the accumulated dust on theselevels is added to that on the main level without increasing the floor area.

When the total dust mass in a building or room is being determined, due considerationshould be given to dust that adheres to walls, since it is easily dislodged. Attention andconsideration should also be given to other projections, such as light fixtures, that canprovide surfaces for dust accumulation.

Dust collection equipment should be monitored to ensure that it is operating effectively.For example, dust collectors that use bags operate most effectively between limitedpressure drops of 2 in. to 5 in. of water (0.50 kPa to 1.24 kPa). An excessive decreaseor low drop in pressure indicates insufficient coating to trap dust.


Submitter Full Name:Susan BershadOrganization: [ Not Specified ]Street Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Wed Jan 06 15:42:57 EST 2016

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This second revision is to correct the following errors in the equations inAnnex B.

B.1 second line right hand side of the equation is missing the term forheight. Should read

0.01 x 1000 x 9.5 =95 kg

B.2c In the denominator of the equation 0.78 should be 0.078

B.2e Same change as above 0.78 should be 0.078

Response

Page 43 of 47



Message:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters3 Not Returned25 Affirmative All2 Affirmative with Comments0 Negative with Comments0 Abstention

Not ReturnedJennett, Jerry J.

Roberts, James L.

Ural, Erdem A.

Affirmative AllChastain, Brice

Cholin, John M.

Dastidar, Ashok Ghose

Desautels, Burke

DiLucido, Tony

Ebadat, Vahid

Febo, Jr., Henry L.

Floyd, Larry D.

Frank, Walter L.

Greeson, Stephen T.

Holcomb, Mark L.

Koch, James F.

Osborn, Jack E.

Pehrson, Richard

Reason, Jason P.

Reza, Ali

Rodgers, Samuel A.

Scherpa, Thomas C.

Stevenson, Bill

Sutton, Jeffery W.

Taveau, Jérôme R.

Page 44 of 47



Taylor, Robert D.

Thomas, Tony L.

Walters, Michael

Weber, Jr., Harold H.

Affirmative with CommentParsons, Philip J.

no comment

Runyon, Mark L.

I agree with the changes

Page 45 of 47

Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards – Fall 2013 and all subsequent revision cycles (excerpts

pertaining to Correlating Committee and Second Draft Actions)

4.4.11 Correlating Committee Review and Action on Public Comments and the Second Draft.

4.4.11.1 Review and Permitted Actions. Where Technical Committee activities are managed and coordinated by a Correlating

Committee, the Correlating Committee shall review the Public Comments and the Second Draft as balloted by the Technical

Committees under its responsibility and take appropriate action within the limits of its authority and responsibilities, as set forth in

3.4.2 and 3.4.3, by creating Correlating Revisions and revising actions on Comments as set forth in 4.4.11.2 and 4.4.11.3.

4.4.11.2 Correlating Revisions. The Correlating Committee may, within the limits of its authority, revise the Second Draft by

creating Second Correlating Revisions, with associated Correlating Statements, that delete or modify Second Revisions or other text in

the Second Draft. To the extent that a Second Correlating Revision modifies or deletes a Second Revision or any portion of the

Second Revision, the original text of the Second Revision or affected portion thereof shall be redesignated as a Committee Comment

and shall be published in the Comment section of the Second Draft Report along with a note indicating that the text contained in the

Committee Comment has been modified or deleted from the Second Draft as a result of a Second Correlating Revision.

4.4.11.2.1 Size and Content of Second Correlating Revisions.

(a) An individual Revision can contain multiple changes to the Standard text, provided that the changes are contained within a

contiguous portion of the Standard that is no smaller than an individual numbered or lettered section or larger than a chapter.

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

Standard so as to achieve editorial consistency or correlation, the Committee may do so through a Global Revision.

4.4.11.3 Change in Actions on Comments. Where a Second Correlating Revision is inconsistent with the Technical Committee’s

Committee Action on any Comment, the Action shall be changed to make it consistent with the Second Correlating Revision, and a

note shall be provided with the new Action indicating that it has been changed at the direction of the Correlating Committee to be

consistent with a Second Correlating Revision.

4.4.11.4 Preparation of Second Draft for Balloting.

4.4.11.4.1 When the Correlating Committee has completed its work, NFPA Staff shall prepare the complete Second Draft showing

individual Second Correlating Revisions and their associated Committee Statements for Balloting.

4.4.11.4.2 Prior to the Ballot, the Second Draft and individual Second Correlating Revisions shall be reviewed by NFPA Staff for

editorial consistency and conformance with the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents, and any required editorial

changes shall be incorporated into the text of the Second Draft and individual Second Correlating Revisions prior to Balloting.

4.4.11.4.3 If, in the course of editorial review, NFPA Staff make an editorial change to text that is not part of a Second Correlating

Revision, Staff may, if Committee review is deemed advisable, designate the affected text as a Second Correlating Revision. A notice

shall be attached to such a Revision indicating that it was developed by Staff for editorial purposes.

4.4.11.5 Correlating Committee Ballot on Second Draft.

4.4.11.5.1 Balloting on Second Correlating Revisions.

(a) Any proposed Second Correlating Revisions to the Second Draft shall be submitted to a Ballot of the Correlating Committee.

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

Negative votes or abstentions on specific Second Correlating Revisions shall include the reasons for such votes.

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

Correlating Revisions and shall be published in the Second Draft Report. Second Correlating Revisions that fail Ballot shall not be

published.

(c) For approved Second Correlating Revisions, a ballot statement as indicated in 3.3.4.3(d) shall be published with their associated

Second Correlating Revisions in the Second Draft Report.

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

that passes Ballot is applied, as directed, throughout the Standard, independently of the results of balloting on other Revisions.

4.4.11.5.2 Ballot on the Report as a Whole. In addition to the Ballot on each of its individual Second Correlating Revisions (see

4.4.11.3.1), there shall be a Ballot of the Correlating Committee on the Second Draft. The results of the Ballot for the further

processing of the NFPA Standard are as follows:

Page 46 of 47

(a) Forward the NFPA Standard to the NFPA Technical Meeting. The proposed NFPA Standard shall be forwarded for

consideration to the NFPA Membership unless the Correlating Committee, by a three-fourths negative vote on the Ballot

(demonstrably based on considerations within its authority and responsibility as set forth in 3.4.2 and 3.4.3), directs the return of the

NFPA Standard to the Technical Committee for further study. If the NFPA Standard is forwarded for consideration to the NFPA

Membership, the results of the Ballot, including the reasons for negative votes, shall be included in the Technical Committee Report.

(b) Return of the NFPA Standard. If the Correlating Committee directs the return of the NFPA Standard to the Technical

Committee for further study, the NFPA Standard is not forwarded to the NFPA Membership, the Second Draft Report is not

published, and a notice that the Correlating Committee has directed the return of the NFPA Standard to the Technical Committee for

further study shall be published in place of the Second Draft Report.

4.4.11.6 Further Processing of NFPA Standards that have been Returned to Committee by the Correlating Committee. When

an NFPA Standard is returned to the Technical Committee in accordance with 4.4.11.5.2(b), the Correlating Committee shall make a

recommendation to the Standards Council on further processing, and the Standards Council shall direct one of the following options:

(a) Process the NFPA Standard based on an existing First Draft, without a call for new Public Comments. This requires the

Technical Committee to begin with the existing First Draft as published, reconsider and act on all Public Comments previously filed,

generate any new Second Revisions, and publish and prepare an amended Second Draft.

(b) Process the NFPA Standard based on the existing First Draft, with a call for new Public Comments. This requires the

Technical Committee to begin with the existing First Draft as published, call for new Public Comments that would supersede all

previously filed Public Comments, and publish and prepare a new Second Draft.

(c) Process the NFPA Standard through a full Revision Cycle without a call for new Public Input. This requires the Technical

Committee to reconsider all Public Input previously filed, generate any new First Revisions, and publish and prepare an amended First

Draft, followed by the processing of the new Second Draft.

(d) Process the NFPA Standard through a full Revision Cycle with a call for new Public Input. This requires the Technical

Committee to call for new Public Input that would supersede all previously filed Public Input, followed by the processing of the new

Second Draft.

Page 47 of 47