55 A2015 IMG-AAA FD ballotfinalTherese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari, and William J....

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

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: NFPA Technical Committee on Industrial and Medical Gases

FROM: Joanne Goyette, Administrator, Technical Projects

DATE: February 11, 2014

SUBJECT: NFPA 55 First Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2015)

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

26 Members Eligible to Vote 4 Not Returned (T. Cirone, A. Gonzalez, F. Licari, and W. Satterfield) 16 Affirmative on All Revisions (With Comment: R. Barnes, J. Cordero, M. Gresho, A. Lacahwiec, and

D. Rohrig) 5 Negative on one or more Revisions (R. Barnes, J. Cordero, M. Gresho, A. Lachawiec, and G. Mahnken) 1 Abstentions on one or more Revisions: (J. Anicello) The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each first revision.

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

(1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote ÷ 2 = 10 + 1 = 11)

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

return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote – 1 not returned – 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 )

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

Eligible to Vote: 26

Not Returned : 4

Therese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari,

and William J. Satterfield, III

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 22

Affirmative with Comment 0

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22

NFPA 55 IMG‐AAA First Draft Ballot

Final Results

February 11, 2014

FR‐3, Section No. 2.3.4, See FR‐3


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

FR‐2, New Section after 1.3, See FR‐2

Total Voted : 22

Results by Revision

FR‐1, Global Input, See FR‐1

Total Voted : 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4





FR‐80, Section No. 2.4, See FR‐80

Total Voted : 22

FR‐79, Sections 2.3.8, 2.3.9, 2.3.10, See FR‐79

Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4



FR‐8, New Section after 3.3.64.2, See FR‐8


Total Voted : 22

FR‐7, Section No. 3.3.49.7, See FR‐7

Total Voted : 22

FR‐60, New Section after 3.3.20, See FR‐60

Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22


Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4



Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 21


Martin T. Gresho There should not be a requirement for storage areas. Most of these are in control areas anyway so this

is redundant. Perhaps the requirement should be storage areas >MAQ which would be hazardous

areas.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 21


Negative 1

Martin T. Gresho I had this all typed out nicely but the ridiculous system did not save it. Here it goes again. There is no

such thing as an Ordinary Hazard Group 2 Occupancy. NFPA 13 uses that term but it is misleading and is

not something NFPA 55 should strive to correlate with. The term occupancies, as used elsewhere in

NFPA 55, refers to the occupancy classification assigned to a structure and from which all building and

fire code requirements can be determined. Examples are business, storage or industrial. These are

common occupancies. NFPA 13 is referring to a particular level of combustible loading presented. It is

better to leave the 55 text as is or to be consistent with the text developed for the MATS systems and

refer to the curve in NFPA 13. That text was suggested by an NFPA 13 member. NFPA 55 is less

confusing without making the proposed change presented here.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 21


Negative 1

Martin T. Gresho same issue as for FR‐12

Abstain 0




Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 20


Negative 2


FR‐18, New Section after 7.1.6.5.6, See FR‐18

Total Voted : 22

FR‐16, Section No. 7.1 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐16

Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Anthony J. Lachawiec, Jr. Section 7.1.20.1.3.1 of the new proposed text states that purging procedures require independent or

third party review, however these procedures are regularly developed without third party review

requirements and are routine, well‐understood and assessed for risk at the time of development. What

is the justification to have these procedures reviewed by a third party and who, for example is the third

party qualified to review/approve? Is the owner of the system/piping considered a third party if the

owner does not install or construct the system or piping?

Rodney L. Barnes 7.1.20.1.3.1 ‐ I don't understand the need for the third party reviewer.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 17


Negative 4

Martin T. Gresho This deletion goes too far. While there may be problems with excess flow control that is only one

option required here. Gas detection + auto shutoff is also an option and that gets deleted as well for

flammable gases. When flammable gases are piped into a building at >15 psi one of these two methods

is appropriate. If there are situations where neither excess flow nor gas detection + auto shutoff are

workable then these should be addressed through the standard alternate means or equivalency

process. This deletion reduces fire safety and is not justified by the substantiation.

Julie V. Cordero This change would reduce fire safety and cause conflicting requirements with the IFC.

Glenn Mahnken Reason # 1: The substantiation statement only explains why excess flow valves do not provide effective

excess flow control in many cases. This difficulty by itself does not justify removing the entire

requirement for excess flow control and the alternative (leak detection + shut‐off). Reason #2: No

substantiation or explanation is given for continuing to require excess flow control for Health hazard

and Instability Classes 3 and 4, while exempting Flammability Class 4. They are all high hazard

compressed gases ‐ what is the rationale for exempting flammable gases but not the others?

Rodney L. Barnes There are other alternatives that can satisfy the requirement instead of forcing this option.

Abstain 1

John J. Anicello History: The excess flow control provision was approved when the hazardous materials provisions from

the legacy codes were being merged into the IFC and was approved in accordance with all the rules in

1997‐2000 when the IFC was developed, 14 years ago. In regards to the NFPA 55 provision 7.3.1.12.1, it

was put there by proponent.


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4



Total Voted : 22

FR‐19, Section No. 7.3.1.12.1 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐19

Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


FR‐22, Section No. 8.2.4.7.2.2, See FR‐22


Total Voted : 22

FR‐74, Sections 7.6.3.2.1, 7.6.3.2.2, See FR‐74

Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 20


Negative 2

Martin T. Gresho Makes CGA M‐1 an enforceable document. This was not provided to the TC members so I do not know

what is in it.

Julie V. Cordero The CGA document was not provided for committee review.

Abstain 0



Total Voted : 22

FR‐24, Section No. 8.7.3 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐24

Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 20


Rodney L. Barnes Agree with comment made by fellow TC Member to add a diagram for better understanding.

Negative 1



Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Anthony J. Lachawiec, Jr. Proposed wording is equally vague – Class 1 Division 1 states Within 3 ft of any vent outlet for location,

then the extent of the classified area is between 0 and 15 ft from “within 3 ft” So is this just between 0

and 18 ft from any vent outlet? Suggestion was made to develop a diagram and none has been

provided. I request that said diagram be provided before consideration so that this intent is

understood, otherwise we miss the intent of the clarifying revision.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 20


Negative 2

Julie V. Cordero Deleting these sections would make it more cumbersome to enforce the requirements. The intent is to

block the radiant heat. Each system would require a design, thus increasing cost.

Rodney L. Barnes Recommend keeping the deleted design wording in. Having a basic design to work to is less problematic

and justification can be provided and approved by the AHJ to allow other design options.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 21


Negative 1



Total Voted : 22

FR‐101, Section No. 10.3.2.4.1, See FR‐101

Total Voted : 22

FR‐32, Section No. 10.3.2.1 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐32

Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Martin T. Gresho The substantiation states that the same level of security should be provided for GH2 as for LH2 without

stating why. GH2 installations are not as complex as LH2 installations with vaporizers etc. and may be

considered bulk at lower thresholds. This is not a significant fire safety issue and does not warrant

special enforcement provisions in a fire code. These fenced areas can create egress concerns that are

not adequately mitigated by the proposed 10.7.3 such as the type of door hardware allowable. Mere

consistency with Chapter 11 is inadequate basis for this requirement. The proponent should provide

examples of incidents that would have been prevented had this added requirement been followed.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 20


Negative 2

Martin T. Gresho Chapter 7 will likely apply to portions of the system after gasification.

Julie V. Cordero Leaving the text as is allows the AHJ to determine the applicability of each Chapter.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0



Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 20


Rodney L. Barnes Recommend adding a diagram to prevent confusion with plane geometry.

Negative 1

Anthony J. Lachawiec, Jr. I did not see the requested diagram provided in either the comment or annex material. This would be

helpful as the geometry described is hard to conceptualize. Essentially this defines a cylinder (I think?)

rather than a sphere (as originally stated) around the location being addressed. If so, how far in the

vertical does the extent of the classified area extend? One could interpret the current revised text to

mean that the vertical position has infinite extent, though I don’t think that is the intent of the revision.

I think the diagram may help clarify the intent of the original commenter.

Abstain 0




Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22

Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0



Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR‐106, Section No. 12.3, See FR‐106

Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 20


David A. Rohrig Section 13.3.1.2 Suggestested Wording Pressure relief devices shall be piped to the outdoors or non‐

recirculating exhaust system where the discharge will not impinge on the structure, personnel, or

means of egress and will not create a hazardous concentration of carbon dioxide.

Negative 0

Abstain 1

John J. Anicello Item 91, a rewrite of Chapter 13 was never called to the floor in accordance with the rules. Instead the

chair called the CGA’s revisions to Item 91 to be heard out of order. The intent of proposal Item 91 was

written to be consistent with the regulation of carbon dioxide at the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) as

in other model codes, i.e., International Fire Code for beverage systems and the International

Mechanical Code for refrigeration. This proposal was also intended to be consistent with model fire

code regulation of all other gases that pose a health hazard, where the alarm trigger points are set at

their PELs.


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0




Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

FR‐91, Chapter 13, See FR‐91

Total Voted : 22

Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0



Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 21


Negative 1

Glenn Mahnken Reason # 1: In 15.3.9.1.2, the proposal to use NFPA 13 density/area curves for MATS deluge system

design would allow decreasing water density as the MATS fire area increases above 2500 sqft. This

approach is not appropriate and could result in inadequate protection for a MATS fire area. The

purpose of the deluge system is to provide a minimum density that is needed to cool all of the exposed

acetylene cylinders, regardless of the operating area. The deluge design density criteria should be left

as is currently specified in 15.3.9.1.2 (i.e. "0.30 gpm/sqft over the MATS fire area being protected").

Reason#2: In 15.3.9.1.4.2, the proposed "fire‐rated barriers" would allow the deluge systems on two or

more side‐by‐side MATS to be designed as separate deluge operating areas. However, the barrier will

not prevent automatic activation of the deluge systems on MATS next to the one where the fire starts.

So, this design approach can result in a depleted water supply and indequate deluge protection, hence

failure to cool the exposed acetylene cylinders and a potential run‐away fire spreading to the adjacent

MATS. A fire‐rated barrier is not sufficent. Multiple MATS closer than 30 ft should be treated as a single

deluge operating area.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

Total Voted : 22


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22

FR‐69, New Section after 15.4.1.10.1.1, See FR‐69

Total Voted : 22

FR‐54, Section No. 15.4.1.8.1.1(B), See FR‐54

Total Voted : 22


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR‐95, Section No. A.10.2.2, See FR‐95

Total Voted : 22

FR‐94, Section No. A.9.3.2, See FR‐94

Total Voted : 22

FR‐109, Section No. A.7.3.1.12.1, See FR‐109

Total Voted : 22

FR‐72, Section No. A.3.3.49.6, See FR‐72

Total Voted : 22


Total Voted : 22


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 20


Julie V. Cordero NFPA 50A was intended to be deleted, but is not shown as such.

Anthony J. Lachawiec, Jr. Reference to NFPA 50A has not been stricken as intended in the comments.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 22


FR‐108, Section No. I.2.2, See FR‐108

FR‐107, Sections I.1.2.1, I.1.2.2, I.1.2.3, I.1.2.4, I.1.2.5, I.1.2..., See FR‐107

Total Voted : 22

FR‐59, Section No. I.1.1, See FR‐59

Total Voted : 22

FR‐97, Section No. A.11.3.2.2.4.2, See FR‐97

Total Voted : 22

FR‐96, Section No. A.10.3.2.1, See FR‐96

Total Voted : 22

Negative 0

Abstain 0

Total Voted : 22

55 A2015 IMG-AAA FD ballotfinalTherese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari, and William J....

Documents

Transcript of 55 A2015 IMG-AAA FD ballotfinalTherese Cirone, Alejandro Gonzalez, Frank A. Licari, and William J....