national fire protection association...2016/12/23 · national fire protection association 1...

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 LP-Gases at Utility Gas Plants

FROM: Sarah Caldwell, Project Administrator

DATE: December 23, 2016

SUBJECT: NFPA 59 Second Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2017)

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

ballot.

24 Members Eligible to Vote

3 Members Not Returned (Farnham, McDaniel, Warren)

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.

Eligible to Vote: 24

Not Returned : 3

Adam Farnham,Charlie G. McDaniel,Stephen Evans

Warren

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 21

Affirmative with Comment 0

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 21


Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-24, Global Comment, See SR-24

Election:59_A2017_LPU_AAA_SD_BALLOT

Results by Revision

SR-15, Global Comment, See SR-15

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/Content/59-2015.ditamap/2/C1472673397358.xml&viewmode=nfpa/xslt/nfpaviewmode.xsl



Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 0

Abstain 1

Michael H. Osmundson I did not participate in a discussion of this item


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 21


Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-27, Section No. 2.2, See SR-27





Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 21


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1

Michael H. Osmundson The Plant/Facility/Component issue needs additional review prior to implementation.

Abstain 0

SR-1, New Section after 3.3.3, See SR-1





Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1

Michael H. Osmundson I believe it is poor practice to apply a definition to a commonly used word which differs

from convention. There are other, more effective ways to achieve the desired goals

than this.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1


Abstain 0






Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1

Randy Ervin this has not been fully explored and the impact has not been explained

Abstain 0




Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 18


Negative 3

William J. Young Nearly all pumps and compressors have thermal reliefs. There are Class 1 division 2

motors which comply with the current code. Making this change would require

changing all of these motors to Division 1 type with indication of a problem. A division 1

area indicates that a flammable produce is normally present. Division 2 areas have gas

p[resent only of there is a malfunction. This change does not offer enhanced safety, but

does require substantial changes in equipment types.

Randy Ervin Before bringing this back into the code we should address the reason that it was taken

out in the first place.

Michael H. Osmundson No technical justification has been given for why this section should match a natural gas

code rather than a propane code.

Abstain 0

SR-11, Section No. 4.5.2.2, See SR-11



Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 19


Negative 2

Randy Ervin this does not make sense to me. If the system of hierarchy goes component, facility,

plant, then it seems to me that this should be addressing the "plant" level. I don't see

how a facility would keep records when you have a plant and likely someone that

manages the plant. Any modifications to a component modify the facility which in turn

modify the plant.


Abstain 0

SR-9, Section No. 4.7.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-9



Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 21


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 21


Negative 0

Abstain 0






Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 17


Negative 4

Bruce J. Swiecicki NFPA 58 requires in Section 6.11.3.12 that underground piping be buried with 12 inches

of cover and that is extended to 18 inches if damage to the piping from external forces

is likely to result. The National Fuel Gas Code (NFPA 54) in Section 7.1.2.1 requires the

same thing. The International Fuel Gas Code requires, in Section 404.12, a minimum 12

inches depth for burying underground piping. The revision to a minimum of 30 inches is

based solely on the desire to correlate with 49 CFR Part 192. There was no technical

justification submitted for making the change.

Randy Ervin where is the technical justification for this change? Just saying that it is not in line with

192 doesn't state why this is right.

Rufus Youngblood NFPA 58 requires in Section 6.11.3.12 that underground piping be buried with 12 inches

of cover and that is extended to 18 inches if damage to the piping from external forces

is likely to result. The National Fuel Gas Code (NFPA 54) in Section 7.1.2.1 requires the

same thing. The International Fuel Gas Code requires, in Section 404.12, a minimum 12

inches depth for burying underground piping. The revision to a minimum of 30 inches is

based solely on the desire to correlate with 49 CFR Part 192. There was no technical

justification submitted for making the change.



Michael H. Osmundson If the intent is to duplicate the requirements which appear in Part 192, this change does

not succeed. Part 192 does not specify yield strength limitations and this change does

not specify class locations. This sets up a potential conflict between the codes.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 18


Negative 3

Bruce J. Swiecicki No technical justification was provided for this change, which essentially will prohibit

gas piping from being installed in the same trench as other utility piping systems. There

has been no information provided as to why this practice, which has been in place for

decades, is unsafe.

Randy Ervin here is the technical justification for this change? Just saying that it is not in line with

192 doesn't state why this is right.

Rufus Youngblood No technical justification was provided for this change, which essentially will prohibit

gas piping from being installed in the same trench as other utility piping systems. There

has been no information provided as to why this practice, which has been in place for

decades, is unsafe.

Abstain 0




Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1


Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1


SR-10, Section No. 7.8.1, See SR-10



Randy Ervin this adds requirements to items that have long been considered part of the piping

system. When combined with the definition it places a new requirement that any item

in the system operating over 15 psi must be designed and constructed according to

ASME BPV section VIII div 1 and not as part of the piping system subject to ASME B31.3.

For example a simple fabricated drip leg potentially becomes a process pressure vessel.

This has not been fully vetted.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1


Abstain 0




Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1

David N. Cook This effective date, which has already passed, is no longer needed in the 2017 edition of

the code. The text has the same effect either way on new and existing installations. If

one wants to determine after the fact whether an installation complied with the code in

2005 or earlier, one must look at the contemporaneous edition of the code, and the

2017 edition of the code should not be involved in the analysis.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1


Abstain 0






Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1

Michael H. Osmundson I feel strongly that on a subject as important as the selection and sizing of relief valves,

NFPA 58 and NFPA59 should agree since the risks and hazards are essentially identical.

This item should first be adopted by NFPA 58.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1


Abstain 0

SR-6, Sections 12.3.3.1, 12.3.3.2, 12.3.3.3, See SR-6





Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 19


Bruce J. Swiecicki Does the title of the code need to be changed as well?

Negative 1


Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 21


Negative 0

Abstain 0






Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1


Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 20


Negative 1

Bruce J. Swiecicki There is an error in the ballot. The wording should read as follows in the last sentence:

"The term fire (protection) control is defined in NFPA 13 as a means of limiting the size

of a fire by distribution of water so as to decrease the heat release rate and pre-wet

adjacent combustibles while controlling ceiling gas temperatures to avoid structural

damage."

Abstain 0

SR-25, Section No. A.3.3.14, See SR-25





Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 21


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 21


Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-22, Section No. A.13.2.4, See SR-22

SR-23, Section No. A.10.1, See SR-23




Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 21


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 3


Warren


Affirmative 21


Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-30, Section No. F.3, See SR-30

SR-29, Section No. F.1.2.2, See SR-29



national fire protection association...2016/12/23 · national fire protection association 1...

Documents