technical committee on explosion protection systems (exl … · 2012. 4. 19. · bs&b safety...

of 1

Technical Committee on Explosion Protection Systems (EXL-AAA)

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: April 19, 2012

TO: Principal and Alternate Members of the Technical Committee on Explosion Protection Systems (EXL-AAA)

FROM: Barry Chase, NFPA Staff Liaison Office: (617) 984-7259 Email: [email protected]

SUBJECT: AGENDA – NFPA 69 First Draft Meeting (Fall 2013) May 2-3, 2012, at NFPA Headquarters, Quincy, MA

1. Call to Order – May 2, 8:00am 2. Introductions and Attendance 3. Review Agenda 4. NFPA Staff Liaison Presentation and Review of the New Regulations Governing the Development

of NFPA Standards 5. Chairman Comments 6. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes (March 27-29, 2012, North Charleston, SC) 7. First Draft of NFPA 69, 2014 Edition

a. Review Public Input b. Generate First Revisions

8. Other Business a. Discuss possible improvements to the entrainment calculation, as accepted in Proposal 68-

27 (Log #18) in the 2012 Report on Proposals for NFPA 68 9. Next Meeting 10. Adjourn Meeting

Please submit requests for additional agenda items to the chair at least seven days prior to the meeting, and notify the chair and staff liaison as soon as possible if you plan to introduce any committee comments at the meeting. All NFPA Technical Committee meetings are open to the public. Please contact me for information on attending a meeting as a guest. Read NFPA's Regulations Governing Committee Projects (Section 3.3.3.3) for further information. Additional Meeting Information: See the Meeting Notice on the Document Information Page (www.nfpa.org/69) for meeting location details. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Elena Carroll, Project Administrator at 617-984-7952 or by email [email protected]. C. Standards Administration

Address List No PhoneExplosion Protection Systems EXL-AAA

Barry D. Chase04/19/2012

EXL-AAA

Samuel A. Rodgers

ChairHoneywell, Inc.15801 Woods Edge RoadColonial Heights, VA 23834

U 4/1/1996EXL-AAA

Luke S. Morrison

SecretaryProfessional Loss Control Inc.PO Box 162Fredericton, NB E3B 4Y9 CanadaAlternate: Martin P. Clouthier

SE 1/1/1987

EXL-AAA

Michael Davies

PrincipalPROTEGOIndustriestrasse llBraunschweig, D-38110 Germany

M 1/14/2005EXL-AAA

Todd A. Dillon

PrincipalXL Global Asset Protection Services1620 Winton AvenueLakewood, OH 44107Alternate: Paul F. Hart

I 7/16/2003

EXL-AAA

Alexi I. Dimopoulos

PrincipalExxonMobil CorporationEMRE, Safety, Risk and Fire Protection3225 Gallows Road, Room 3A0233Fairfax, VA 22037-0001American Petroleum Institute

U 4/15/2004EXL-AAA

Henry L. Febo, Jr.

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

I 8/5/2009

EXL-AAA

Robert J. Feldkamp

PrincipalNordson Corporation300 Nordson DriveAmherst, OH 44001Alternate: Edward L. Jones

M 7/29/2005EXL-AAA

Larry D. Floyd

PrincipalBASF/Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation1379 Ciba RoadMcIntosh, AL 36553

U 7/29/2005

EXL-AAA

Joseph P. Gillis

Principal29 Hyder StreetWestboro, MA 01581

SE 10/1/1980EXL-AAA

John E. Going

PrincipalFike Corporation704 South 10th StreetBlue Springs, MO 64015Alternate: Jef Snoeys

M 9/30/2004

EXL-AAA

Stanley S. Grossel

PrincipalProcess Safety & Design Consultant4 Marble Court, Unit 9Clifton, NJ 07013-2212

SE 1/1/1983EXL-AAA

Dan A. Guaricci

PrincipalATEX Explosion Protection, L.P.2629 Waverly Barn Road, Suite 121Davenport, FL 33897

M 7/1/1991

EXL-AAA

Michael D. Hard

PrincipalHard Fire Suppression Systems, Inc.4645 Westerville Road, Suite AColumbus, OH 43231-6050Fire Suppression Systems AssociationAlternate: Kirk W. Humbrecht

IM 10/1/1994EXL-AAA

David D. Herrmann

PrincipalE. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company1007 Market Street, (D12016)Wilmington, DE 19898Alternate: Thomas C. Scherpa

U 10/10/1997

1



EXL-AAA

Alfonso F. Ibarreta

PrincipalExponent, Inc.9 Strathmore RoadNatick, MA 01760Alternate: Timothy J. Myers

SE 3/4/2009EXL-AAA

David C. Kirby

PrincipalBaker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc.1560 Clearview HeightsCharleston, WV 25312Alternate: James Kelly Thomas

SE 1/1/1983

EXL-AAA

Steven A. McCoy

PrincipalCorn Products/National StarchPO Box 1084Indianapolis, IN 46206NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section

U 10/10/1997EXL-AAA

James O. Paavola

PrincipalDTE Energy/Detroit Edison Company2000 Second Ave., Room 421 GODetroit, MI 48226

U 1/10/2002

EXL-AAA

Stefan Penno

PrincipalRembe GmbH Safety & ControlGallbergweg 21Brilon NRW, D-59929 GermanyAlternate: Gerd Ph. Mayer

M 11/2/2006EXL-AAA

Mitchel L. Rooker

PrincipalBS&B Safety Systems, LLCPO Box 470590Tulsa, OK 74147-0590Alternate: Geof Brazier

M 10/10/1997

EXL-AAA

Joseph A. Senecal

PrincipalUTC/Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.400 Main StreetAshland, MA 01721Alternate: Randal R. Davis

M 1/1/1989EXL-AAA

Cleveland B. Skinker

PrincipalBechtel Power Corporation5275 Westview DriveFrederick, MD 21703-8306

SE 3/4/2009

EXL-AAA

Bill Stevenson

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

M 7/22/1999EXL-AAA

David R. Stottmann

PrincipalST StoragePO Box 996Parsons, KS 67357Alternate: Keith McGuire

M 11/2/2006

EXL-AAA

Stephen M. Stuart

PrincipalHylant Group2401 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 400Troy, MI 48084

I 7/24/1998EXL-AAA

Erdem A. Ural

PrincipalLoss Prevention Science & Technologies, Inc.810 Washington Street, Suite 4Stoughton, MA 02072

SE 1/16/1998

EXL-AAA

Robert G. Zalosh

PrincipalFirexplo20 Rockland StreetWellesley, MA 02481

SE 1/1/1991EXL-AAA

Eric R. Johnson

Voting AlternateSavannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLCSavannah River SiteBldg. 235-11H, Room 10Aiken, SC 29808Voting Alt. to Savannah River Nuclear Rep.

U 10/18/2011

2



EXL-AAA

Geof Brazier

AlternateBS&B Safety Systems, LLC7455 East 46th StreetTulsa, OK 74145Principal: Mitchel L. Rooker

M 3/21/2006EXL-AAA

Martin P. Clouthier

AlternateProfessional Loss Control Inc.PO Box 162Fredericton, NS E3B 4Y9 CanadaPrincipal: Luke S. Morrison

SE 10/27/2005

EXL-AAA

Randal R. Davis

AlternateUTC/Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.400 Main StreetAshland, MA 01721Principal: Joseph A. Senecal

M 7/14/2004EXL-AAA

Paul F. Hart

AlternateXL Global Asset Protection Services18257 Martin AvenueHomewood, IL 60430Principal: Todd A. Dillon

I 4/4/1997

EXL-AAA

Kirk W. Humbrecht

AlternatePhoenix Fire Systems, Inc.744 West Nebraska StreetFrankfort, IL 60423-1701Fire Suppression Systems AssociationPrincipal: Michael D. Hard

IM 7/19/2002EXL-AAA

Edward L. Jones

AlternateNordson Corporation300 Nordson Drive, M/S 44Amherst, OH 44001Principal: Robert J. Feldkamp

M 7/29/2005

EXL-AAA

Jason Krbec

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

M 10/18/2011EXL-AAA

John A. LeBlanc

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

I 8/5/2009

EXL-AAA

Gerd Ph. Mayer

AlternateRembe, Inc.3809 Beam Road, Suite KCharlotte, NC 28217Principal: Stefan Penno

M 03/05/2012EXL-AAA

Keith McGuire

AlternateCST StoragePO Box 996Parsons, KS 67357Principal: David R. Stottmann

M 11/2/2006

EXL-AAA

Timothy J. Myers

AlternateExponent, Inc.9 Strathmore RoadNatick, MA 01760Principal: Alfonso F. Ibarreta

SE 10/20/2010EXL-AAA

Thomas C. Scherpa

AlternateThe DuPont Company, Inc.71 Valley RoadSullivan, NH 03445Principal: David D. Herrmann

U 8/9/2011

EXL-AAA

Jef Snoeys

AlternateFike CorporationToekomstlaan 52Herentals, B-2200 BelgiumPrincipal: John E. Going

M 3/21/2006EXL-AAA

James Kelly Thomas

AlternateBaker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc.3330 Oakwell Court, Suite 100San Antonio, TX 78218Principal: David C. Kirby

SE 8/9/2011

3



EXL-AAA

Franz Alfert

Nonvoting MemberInburex ConsultingAugust-Thyssen-Str.1Hamm, D-59067 Germany

SE 7/29/2005EXL-AAA

Laurence G. Britton

Nonvoting MemberProcess Safety Consultant848 Sherwood RoadCharleston, WV 25314

SE 1/1/1983

EXL-AAA

Vladimir Molkov

Nonvoting MemberUniversity of UlsterFireSERT Institute(Block 27)Newtonwnabbey, BT37 0QB Northern Ireland, UK

SE 10/6/2000EXL-AAA

Harry Verakis

Nonvoting MemberUS Department of LaborMine Safety & Health AdministrationApproval & Certification CenterIndustrial Park Road, Box 251Triadelphia, WV 26059

E 1/1/1977

EXL-AAA

Richard F. Schwab

Member Emeritus79 Aspen DriveBasking Ridge, NJ 07920-1975

SE 1/1/1991EXL-AAA

Barry D. Chase

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

3/1/2012

4

Report on Proposals – November 2013 NFPA 69_______________________________________________________________________________________________69- Log #10

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Kimberly A. Gruner, Fike Corporation

Revise text to read as follows:To meet a minimum level of reliability, explosion prevention and control systems designed and installed in

accordance with the requirements of this standard shall include, but not be limited to, the following:(1) Design system verification through testing(2) Third-party inspection and approval of protection systems by an internationally recognized testing laboratory for the

function intended, as specified in Chapters 7 through 14.(3) Management of change(4) Regular testing and maintenance(5) Commissioning Acceptance tests(6) Design documentation

Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3as ‘

’Now that NFPA 3 is released, confusion could occur regarding the actual testing required by the use of the term

‘commissioning’.Commissioning is a much more involved testing that would involve all active and passive interfaces from the fire

protection system, emergency power, explosion prevention, HVAC, etc.Many NFPA documents (NFPA 1 , NFPA 13 , NFPA 70

, NFPA 72 , etc. - See attached list of instances)reference an Acceptance Test for validation of the specific equipment, which is defined ‘

.’ Each specific trade orequipment has a level of acceptance testing performed, while the entire facility can be commissioned to ensure that thesystems interact together to meet the design objectives.Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________69- Log #2

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee

Revise text to read as follows:When desired by the owner or operator, or required by the authority having jurisdiction, Insurance underwriter or when

required by other standards, explosion prevention shall be achieved by one or more of the following methods asrequired to mitigate the damage, prevent the transport of the ignition source, and propagate the deflagration.

All earlier sections are written in absolute requirements i.e. use of the word shall. Owners andoperators do not meet or exceed standards unless required by the AHJ, Insurance underwriter or other code orstandard.

1Printed on 4/19/2012



Revise text to read as follows:It shall be permitted to eliminate deflagration isolation protection for interconnected enclosures based on a documented

risk analysis prepared by a registered design professional and acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, unlessisolation protection is specifically required for such enclosure by other standards.

The person(s) performing risk analysis must take into account all factors related to use, process andstructure. This is not a typical AHJ review item and this change puts the responsibility on the responsible party todemonstrate such. The language as indicated is also consistent with the identified requirements for performancesubmittals in NFPA 101 5.1.3.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________69- Log #4


Revise text to read as follows:The provisions of this standard reflect a consensus of what is necessary to provide an acceptable degree of protection

from the hazards addressed in this standard at the time the standard was issued.Delete language as indicated.

The deleted text allows the reader to clearly understand this section without changing or detracting fromwhat was written. The NFPA operates through a consensus process. The language as written adds nothing to thesection.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________69- Log #5


Revise text to read as follows:Technical documentation shall be prepared by a registered design professional and submitted to the authority having

jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency.Add language as indicated.

To be consistent with the requirements in NFPA 101 5.1.3 Qualifications. The performance-baseddesign shall be prepared by a registered design professional.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________69- Log #6


Add new text as follows:The system, method, or device shall be approved for the intended purpose by the authority having jurisdiction. Create

a new 1.5.2.1 which reads:The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to require an approved, independent

third party to review the proposed design, system or method and provide an evaluation of the design to the authorityhaving jurisdiction.

Allows AHJs the stated ability to seek third party review. Language extracted from NFPA 101-5.1.4.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International

Revise text to read as follows:ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA

19428-2959.ASTM D 257, 2007 2005.ASTM D 3574,

2008 2003.ASTM E 2079, 2007.

Standards Date Update.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________69- Log #7


Revise text to read as follows:The performance-based design shall be prepared by a person with qualifications acceptable to the authority having

jurisdiction registered design professional and person with qualifications acceptable to the AHJ.Qualifications for submittal of performance based design needs to be consistent with the life Safety

Code Chapter 5, 5.1.3 Qualifications. The performance-based design shall be prepared by a registered designprofessional.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________69- Log #8


Revise text to read as follows:Prevention and control systems shall be regularly annually inspected and maintained to confirm the ability to perform

as designed. The owner shall annually certify compliance with the conditions and limitations of the design by submittinga warrant of fitness acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. The warrant of fitness shall attest that the buildingfeatures, systems, and use have been inspected and confirmed to remain consistent with design specifications outlinedin the documentation required and that such features, systems, and use continue to satisfy the goals and objectives.

Maintain consistency with the Life Safety Code 4.6.10.2 Where compliance with this Code is effectedby means of a performance-based design, the owner shall annually certify compliance with the conditions and limitationsof the design by submitting a warrant of fitness acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. The warrant of fitnessshall attest that the building features, systems, and use have been inspected and confirmed to remain consistent withdesign specifications outlined in the documentation required by Section 5.8 and that such features, systems, and usecontinue to satisfy the goals and objectives specified in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. (See Chapter 5.) 5.1.7* Maintenance ofDesign Features. The design features required for the building to continue to meet the performance goals andobjectives of this Code shall be maintained for the life of the building. Such performance goals and objectives shallinclude complying with all documented assumptions and design specifications. Any variations shall require the approvalof the authority having jurisdiction prior to the actual change. (See also 4.6.10.2.)




Revise text to read as follows:Plans and system specifications prepared by the design professional, and manufacturer’s recommendations for testing

and maintenance shall contain information that enables the authority having jurisdiction to evaluate the explosion hazardand the effectiveness of the system.

Maintains consistency with performance measures in Life Safety Code, 5.6.2 Use. The designprofessional shall use the assessment methods to demonstrate that the proposed design will achieve the goals andobjectives, as measured by the performance criteria in light of the safety margins and uncertainty analysis, for eachscenario, given the assumptions.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________69- Log #11


Revise text to read as follows:9.6.6 At commissioning Acceptance, the system manufacturer and the owner or operator shall document that the

installation is in accordance with the design and that the system is armed and functional.Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 Recommended Practice on Commissioning and

Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems as ‘

’Now that NFPA 3 is released, confusion could occur regarding the actual testing required by the use of the term‘commissioning’.Commissioning is a much more involved testing that would involve all active and passive interfaces from the fireprotection system,emergency power, explosion prevention, HVAC, etc.Many NFPA documents (1 Fire Code, 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 70 National Electrical Code,72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, etc. - See attached list of instances) reference an Acceptance Test forvalidation of the specific equipment, which is defined ‘

.’ Each specific trade or equipment has a level of acceptance testingperformed, while the entire facility can be commissioned to ensure that the systems interact together to meet the designobjectives.Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.




Revise text to read as follows:10.4.4.6 At commissioning acceptance, the system manufacturer and the owner or operator shall document that the

installation is in accordance with the design and that the system is armed and functional.Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 Recommended Practice on Commissioning and







Revise text to read as follows:11.4.3.5 At commissioning acceptance, the system manufacturer and the owner or operator shall document that the

installation is in accordance with the design and the system was armed and functional.Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 Recommended Practice on Commissioning and




_______________________________________________________________________________________________69- Log #1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________D. Gopalkrishna Murti, Kuwait Oil Company

Revise text to read as follows:Equation 13.1 ***Insert Equation 13.1 (old)*** should read ***Insert Equation 13.1 (new)***Equation 13.2 ***Insert Equation 13.2 (old)*** should read ***Insert Equation 13.2 (new)***

The equations use a factor of safety of 2/3 (66.67%) for calculating Fu (Ratio of ultimate stress toallowable stress) and Fy (Ratio of Yield Stress to Allowable Stress). I believe, these are conservative values for aninternal explosion scenario and result in extra thickness for enclosures. My suggestions are:Equation 1: The factor for Fu may be raised to 0.9 (90%) The ultimate tensile stress value given in ASME Boiler and

Pressure Vessel Code are guaranteed minimum values and we can go up to 90% of UTS.Equation 2: The factor may be raised to 1.0 (100%). By using a factor of safety of 2/3, the allowable rise in stress level

due to internal explosion is Zero or almost near Zero for most popular materials of construction.Using a multiplier of 2/3 far exceeds the stated

intention.Example 1: Carbon steel Plate SA-516 Gr. 55 (K01500), Yield Stress = psig, Allow. Stress = psig

(Temp. <= 100 °F). Using 2/3 factor of safety, the allowed stress under internal explosion =psig, same as Allowable Design Stress of psig.Example 2: Carbon steel Plate SA-516 Br. 60 (K02100), Yield Stress = psig. Allow. Stress = psig

(Temp. <= 100 °F). Using 2/3 factor of safety, the allowed stress = psig, which is close toAllowable Design Stress of psig.


NFPA 69 Log 1 Equation 13.1 (old) ROP

. .

NFPA 69 Log 1 Equation 13.1 (new) ROP

. .

.

NFPA 69 Log 1 Equation 13.2 (old) ROP

. .

NFPA 69 Log 1 Equation 13.2 (new) ROP

. .



Revise text to read as follows:

Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 Recommended Practice on Commissioning andIntegrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems as ‘






Revise text to read as follows:15.6.1 Prior to use, factory authorized personnel shall check out the explosion prevention system, including the followingsteps, as applicable:(1) Conduct a walkthrough and general visual inspection of correct location, size, type, and mounting of all systemcomponents.(2) Physically inspect system components, including mechanical and electrical component integrity.(3) Conduct control unit functional testing.(4) Make point-to-point wiring checks of all circuits.(5) Ensure continuity and condition of all field wiring.(6) Inspect sensing pathway and calibrate initiating devices.(7) Verify correct installation of system components including sensing devices, fast-acting valves, suppressant storagecontainers, nozzles, spreader hoses, protective blowoff caps, plugs, and stoppers.(8) Verify system sequence of operations by simulated activation to verify system inputs and outputs.(9) Conduct automatic fast-acting valve stroke test.(10) Conduct prevalidation testing, verify system interlocks, and shutdown circuits.(11) Identify and fix discrepancies before arming and handing off to user or operator.(12) Recalibrate detection sensing devices to final set points.(13) Complete record of system commissioning inspection acceptance tests, including hardware serial numbers,detector pressure calibrations, and suppressor and valve actuator charging pressures (psig), as appropriate.(14) Conduct end user training as required in Section 15.10.(15) Conduct final validation testing for authority having jurisdiction.(16) Arm the explosion prevention system.







A.3.3.4 Combustible dust.Most commercial test laboratories offer a low cost screening (“go” or “no go”) test to establish whether a dust sample is

combustible or not. These test methods commonly use the test apparatuses described in ASTM E 1226,, or ASTM E 1491,

. These tests can often be performed atthe process conditions.

The standard presently describing a test method for explosibility of dust clouds is ASTM E1226, nowcalled (in its most recent edition (2010): ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________69- Log #18


Revise text to read as follows:Materials other than oxygen can act as oxidants. The LOC depends

upon the temperature, pressure, and fuel concentration as well as the type of diluent. Preliminary results of the ASTM E2079, , round robin tests forgases and vapors revealed that the LOC data that were obtained using different test methods and that are listed in amajority of reference publications are nonconservative. The old Bureau of Mines data were obtained mostly in a 50 mmdiameter flammability tube. This diameter might be too small to mitigate the flame-quenching influence, therebyimpeding accurate determination of the LOC of most fuels. The 4 L minimum volume specified in ASTM E 2079 wouldcorrespond to a diameter of at least 200 mm (7.9 in.). As a result, some LOC values determined using this standard areapproximately 1 percent by volume oxygen lower than the previous values measured in the flammability tube, and a feware even up to 2 percent by volume lower. The lower LOC values obtained in larger chambers are more appropriate foruse in fire and explosion hazard assessment studies. A data comparison can be found in Table A.3.3.25. Generally,LOC decreases as the pressure or temperature prior to ignition increases. Best practice is to test the LOC at theappropriate temperature and pressure. Deviations from the test fuel composition and temperature might possibly beaccounted for by using appropriate techniques. For dusts, an appropriate test apparatus should be used in conjunctionwith a strong ignition source, such as described in ASTM E1226, ,the draft of standard ASTM E 27, , or in CEN EN 14034-4,

Part 4.ASTM E27 was a standard between 1964 and 1986, when it was withdrawn. Its title was completely

different from the title given in NFPA 69. It was as follows:ASTM - 64 (1981) Method for Spectrographic Analysis of Zinc and Zinc Alloys by the Solution Residue Technique

(Withdrawn 1986)The standard presently describing a test method for explosibility of dust clouds is ASTM E1226, now called (in its most

recent edition (2010): ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. The reference to ASTM E27should be replaced by a reference to ASTM E1226.




Revise text to read as follows:A.10.5.3 In addition to local visual and audible trouble signal, the control panel can provide an electrical output

meansto produce this function externally. When external means is utilized, this should be implemented full time andconfirmed at system commissioning acceptance.







Revise text to read as follows:A.11.7.3 In addition to local visual and audible trouble signal, the control panel can provide an electrical output means

to produce this function externally. When external means is utilized, it should be implemented full time and confirmed atsystem commissioning acceptance.




_______________________________________________________________________________________________69- Log #20


Revise text to read as follows:ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA

19428-2959.ASTM E 27, unpublished draft.ASTM E 1226,

, 2005.ASTM E 1491, , 2006.ASTM E 1515, , 2007 2003.ASTM E 2019, , 2003 (2007).ASTM E 2021, , 2006 2009 .ASTM E 2079, , 2007.

ASTM E27 was a standard between 1964 and 1986, when it was withdrawn. Its title was completely different from thetitle given in NFPA 69. It was as follows:ASTM - 64 (1981) Method for Spectrographic Analysis of Zinc and Zinc Alloys by the Solution Residue Technique

(Withdrawn 1986)The standard presently describing a test method for explosibility of dust clouds is ASTM E1226, now called (in its most

recent edition (2010): ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. The reference to ASTM E27should be replaced by a reference to ASTM E1226.


technical committee on explosion protection systems (exl … · 2012. 4. 19. · bs&b safety...

Documents