Laboratories Using Chemicals Brenda L. Bronson, Andrew … · 2016. 2. 23. · Report of the Committee on Laboratories Using Chemicals Brenda L. Bronson, Chair U.S. General Services

Report of the Committee on

Laboratories Using Chemicals

Brenda L. Bronson, ChairU.S. General Services Administration, CO [U]

Andrew Minister, SecretaryBattelle Northwest Laboratory, WA [U]

Richard R. Anderson, Merck & Company, Incorporated, NJ [U]Raymond E. Arntson, Rayden Research LLC, WI [SE]William H. Barlen, Barlen and Associates, Incorporated, CT [M] Rep. Airgas, Incorporated and Purification Technologies IncorporatedRobert Burke, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD [E]Hal Cohen, HCC and Associates Incorporated, DE [SE]Gregory F. DeLuga, Siemens Building Technologies, IL [M]John L. Dembishack, III, Connecticut Department of Public Safety, CT [E]Kevin C. Gilkison, Labconco Corporation, MO [M]Louis Hartman, HarleyEllis, MI [SE]Ronald Keefer, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, CA [E]Donald J. Kohn, Kohn Engineering, PA [SE]Stephen G. Leeds, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA [RT]Ulrich M. Lindner, Earl Walls Associates, CA [SE]Dana F. Mason, Georgia State University, GA [U]John P. McCabe, National Institutes of Health, MD [E]Robert Myers, Myers & Associates (Amoco), GA [U]Charles C. Phillips, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN [RT]Rudolph Poblete, Kewaunee Scientific Corporation, NC [M]Peter Puhlick, University of Connecticut, CT [U]David R. Quigley, Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Lab, ID [U]James F. Riley, CUH2A, Incorporated, NJ [SE]Michael W. St. Clair, The Ohio State University, OH [U] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection SectionStephen A. Szabo, Safety + Services, Incorporated, OK [SE]Patricia Weggel-Laane, US Environmental Protection Agency (3207A), DC [E]Pamela Weiss Tatum, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine, MD [E]

Alternates

Darren G. Cooke, Connecticut Department of Safety, CT [E] (Alt. to J. L. Dembishack)Samuel A. Denny, National Institutes of Health, MD [E] (Alt. to J. P. McCabe)Craig E. Hofmeister, The RJA Group, Incorporated, NC [SE] (Voting Alt. to RJA Rep.)Joseph Milligan, GlaxoSmithKline, PA [U] (Alt. to M. W. St. Clair)Howard O. Wilson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC [E] (Alt. to P. Weggel-Laane)

Nonvoting

John Fresina, Lexington, MA (Member Emeritus)Norman V. Steere, Norman V. Steere & Associates, Incorporated, MN [SE]

Staff Liaison: Amy B. Spencer

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents for the prevention of loss of life and damage to propertyfrom fire and explosion in chemical laboratories not located in health care facilities.

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

The Report of the Technical Committee on Laboratories Using Chemicals is presented for adoption.

This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Laboratories Using Chemicals, and proposes for adoption, a complete revision toNFPA 45, Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals, 2000 edition. NFPA 45-2000 is published in Volume 3 of the2002 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Laboratories Using Chemicals, which consists of 28 votingmembers. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

1

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-1 Log #CP14 (Entire Document (MOS))

Final Action: Accept

Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Completely revise entire document to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style as follows: 1. Revise Chapter 1 to contain administrative text only as follows: (show revised text here or indicate where revised text can be found) 2. Revise Chapter 2 to contain only referenced publications cited in the mandatory portions of the document. 3. Revise Chapter 3 to contain only definitions. 4. Revise so that all units of measure in document are converted to SI units with inch/pound units in parentheses. 5. Appendices are to be restructured and renamed as "Annexes." 6. All mandatory sections of the document must be evaluated for usability, adoptability, and enforceability language. Generatenecessary committee proposals as shown (or indicate where shown). 7. Reword exceptions as requirements. 8. Single sentences per requirement as shown (or indicate where shown).

Substantiation:

Editorial restructuring, to conform with the 2000 edition of the NFPA Manual of Style.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3

45-2 Log #CP32 (Entire Document)


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Throughout the document, globally change the term “laboratory hood” to “chemical fume hood”.

Substantiation:

The term “chemical fume hood” is more commonly used term for this equipment and more clearly differentiates it from other hoodsused in the laboratory.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


2

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-3 Log #7 (1.1.1)

Final Action: Reject

Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. CommitteeRecommendation: Revise to read: 1.1.1 This Standard shall apply to laboratory buildings, laboratory units, and laboratory work areas whether located above or belowgrade in which laboratories, as defined, are handled or stored. Exception No. 1: This standard shall not apply to laboratory units with less than or equal to 4L (1.1. gal) of flammable or combustibleliquid and less than 2.2 standard m3 (75 scf) of flammable gas. The storage, handling and use of chemicals in such laboratories shall bein accordance with applicable provisions of NFPA 1. Exception No. 2: It does not apply to laboratories that are pilot plants. The storage, handling and use of chemicals in such laboratoriesshall be in accordance with applicable provisions of NFPA 1. Exception No. 3: It does not apply to laboratories that handle only chemicals with a hazard rating of zero or one, as defined by NFPA704, Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response, for all of the following: health,flammability, and instability. Exception No. 4: It does not apply to laboratories that are primarily manufacturing facilities. The storage, handling and use ofchemicals in such facilities shall be in accordance with applicable provisions of NFPA 1. Exception No. 5: It does not apply to incidental testing facilities. The storage, handling and use of chemicals in such facilities shall bein accordance with applicable provisions of NFPA 1. Exception No. 6: It does not apply to physical, electronic, instrument, laser or similar laboratories that use chemicals only forincidental purposes, such as cleaning. Exception No. 7: It does not apply to laboratories that work only with radioactive materials, as covered by NFPA 801, Standard for FireProtection for Facilities Handling Radioactive Materials. Exception No. 8: It does not apply to laboratories that work only with explosive material, as covered by NFPA 495, Explosive MaterialsCode.

Substantiation:

Provided flammable and combustible liquids in excess of 4L and flammable gas in excess of 2.2 m3 are not used, laboratories thathandle hazardous materials (i.e. corrosive, highly toxic, oxidizing, reactive), in any quantity, are not covered by this Standard.Additionally, pilot plants, manufacturing facilities and incidental testing facilities are exempted from this Standard based on thedefinition of "laboratory" which excludes chemicals used or synthesized in a workplace on a production basis. A clarification is neededin each of the four exceptions to alert the user that while such laboratories and facilities are exempted from this Standard, requirementsfor the safe storage and control of hazardous materials in these locations are set forth in NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code.

Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The AHJ should determine if NFPA 1 or another document is applicable for facilities outside the scope of NFPA 45.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Explanation of Negative: KEEFER: In accordance with NFPA 1, hazardous materials are regulated by the hazard class of the chemical and its quantity, the morehazardous the material, the lower the quantity requiring Code compliance. The proponent attempts to fill-in the gaps that currently existin NFPA 45 that leaves the point of regulation at the question as to what is a "High Fire Hazard" Lab vs. a "Low Fire Hazard" lab. Theproposal would have provided a level of safety for health hazard chemicals as well.

45-4 Log #CP12 (1.1.1 Exception 1 and Figure A-1.1.3 [ROP draft 1.1.2(1)])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: 1. Modify Section 1.1.1 Exception 1 [draft Section 1.1.2(1)], adding a new annex item as follows: 1.1.2 This standard shall not apply to the following: (1)* If both conditions exist: (a) Laboratory units contain less than or equal to 4 L (1.1 gal) of flammable or combustible liquid (b) laboratory units contain less than 2.2 standard m3 (75 scf) of flammable gas, not including piped-in low pressure utility gasinstalled in accordance with NFPA 54. A.1.1.2 Either condition (a) or (b) meeting the minimum quantity will bring the lab within the scope of NFPA 45. A school lab with alow pressure natural gas system supplying Bunsen burners (with less than the minimum quantities of combustible or flammable liquidsand less than the minimum quantities of other flammable gases) is an example of a lab outside the scope of NFPA 45.

Substantiation:

The Committee wished to reinforce that either condition (a) the amount of flammable or combustible liquids or (b) amount offlammable gas would bring the lab within the scope of NFPA 45. The annex was added to provide an example to clarify a frequentlyasked advisory service question. The text shown also reflects the editorial changes as a result of implementing the NFPA Manual of Style. This change is to Section 1.1.1Exception 1 of the 2000 edition.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


3

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-5 Log #CP13 (1.4 Definitions (GOT) [ROP draft Chapter 3])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: 1. Adopt the preferred definitions from the NFPA Glossary of Terms for the following terms: Baffle (preferred) NFPA 54, 1999 ed. An object placed in or near an appliance to change the direction of, or to retard the flow of, the following: (a) Air (b) Air-gas mixtures (c) Air-fuel mixtures (d) Flue gases. Business Occupancy (preferred) NFPA 5000, 2002 ed. An occupancy used for account and record keeping or the transaction of business other than mercantile. Flammable Gas (preferred) NFPA 99, 2002 ed. Any substance that exists in the gaseous state at normal atmospheric temperature and pressure and is capable of being ignited andburned when mixed with the proper proportions of air, oxygen, or other oxidizers.Flammable Liquid (preferred) NFPA 30, 2000 ed. A liquid that has a closed-cup flash point that is below 37.8°C (100°F) and a maximum vapor pressure of 2068 mm Hg (40 psia) at37.8°C (100°F). Health Care Facilities (preferred) NFPA 5000, 2002 ed. Buildings or portions of buildings in which medical, dental, psychiatric, nursing, obstetrical, or surgical care are provided. Health carefacilities include, but are not limited to, hospitals, nursing homes, limited care facilities, clinics, medical and dental offices, andambulatory care centers. Health Care Occupancy (preferred) NFPA 5000, 2002 ed. An occupancy used for purposes of medical or other treatment or care of four or more persons where such occupants are mostlyincapable of self-preservation due to age, physical or mental disability, or because of security measures not under the occupants’control. Industrial Occupancy (preferred) NFPA 5000, 2002 ed. An occupancy in which products are manufactured or in which processing, assembling, mixing, packaging, finishing, decorating, orrepair operations are conducted. Street Floor (preferred) NFPA 101B, 2002 ed. A story or floor level accessible from the street or from outside a building at ground level, with the floor level at the main entrancelocated not more than three risers above or below ground level and arranged and utilized to qualify as the main floor. 2. The Committee chose to make no change (opting not to change the following terms to the preferred terms) for the reasons noted inthe substantiation:Chemical (preferred) NFPA 306, 2001 ed. Any compound, mixture, or solution in the form of a solid, liquid, or gas that may be hazardous by virtue of its properties other than orin addition to flammability or by virtue of the properties of compounds that might be evolved from hot work or cold work. Chemical (secondary) NFPA 45, 2000 ed A substance with one or more of the following hazard ratings as defined in NFPA 704, Standard System for the Identification of theHazards of Materials for Emergency Response: Health - 2, 3, or 4; Flammability - 2, 3, or 4; Reactivity - 2, 3, or 4. Cryogenic Fluid (preferred) NFPA 86, 1999 ed. A fluid produced or stored at very low temperatures. In the context of this standard, cryogenic fluid generally refers to gases made atlow temperatures and stored at the user site in an insulated tank for use as an atmosphere or atmosphere constituent (e.g., nitrogen, argon,carbon dioxide, hydrogen, oxygen). Cryogenic Fluid (secondary) NFPA 45, 2000 ed Substance that exists only in the vapor phase above -73°C (-99°F) at one atmosphere pressure and that is handled, stored, and used inthe liquid state at temperatures at or below -73°C (-99°F) while at any pressure.Laboratory (preferred) NFPA 99, 2002 ed. A building, space, room, or group of rooms intended to serve activities involving procedures for investigation, diagnosis, or treatmentin which flammable, combustible, or oxidizing materials are to be used. Laboratory (secondary) NFPA 45, 2000 ed A facility where the containers used for reactions, transfers, and other handling of chemicals are designed to be easily and safelymanipulated by one person. It is a workplace where chemicals are used or synthesized on a nonproduction basis.

Substantiation:

Adoption of preferred definitions will assist the user by providing consistent meaning of defined terms throughout the National FireCodes. The preferred terms for “chemical”, “cryogenic fluid” and “laboratory” were not used because of the following reasons: 1. Chemical - the existing NFPA 45 definition is more specific and is integral with the scope of NFPA 45. 2. Cryogenic fluid - the preferred definition is not specific as to what are “low temperatures”. The existing NFPA 45 definitionprovides specific temperatures. 3. Laboratory - the preferred definition includes health care specific activities which would not be found in NFPA 45 laboratories.

Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


4

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-6 Log #1 (1.4 Pressurized Liquid Dispensing Container (New) )

Final Action: Accept in Principle

NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 45-4 (Log 3) which was held from the May 2000 ROC on Proposal 45-1.Submitter: William H. Barlen, Barlen & Assoc., Inc. / Rep. Airgas, Inc.Recommendation: Add the following term and definition: Pressurized Liquid Dispensing Container. A DOT or ASME pressure container designed to dispense flammable or combustible liquids.The container shall be pressure rated at least four times the relief device setting and have a shutoff valve installed on the container.

Substantiation:

Several companies are supplying these containers for laboratories. We were asked several years ago by B & J and Baker to address andwe did not. These containers are safer and have a greater ability to contain their product than current containers. By adding this now wecould expand in the next edition.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Proposal 45-7 (Log #CP 21).Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-7 Log #CP21 (1.4 Pressurized Liquid Dispensing Container (PLDC) [ROP draft 3.3.50 (New)])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Add the following definition: 3.3.50 Pressurized Liquid Dispensing Container (PLDC). DOT, UN 1A1, or ASME pressure container designed to dispense flammable orcombustible liquids by gas pressure.

Substantiation:

The PLDCs are currently being used in labs and need to be considered in NFPA 45. The term needs to be defined to ensure thesecontainers meet certain specifications.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


5

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-8 Log #CP48 (1.4.6 Biological Safety Cabinet and A.1.4.6 [ROP 3.3.4 and A.3.3.4 (new)])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 1.4.6 and add a new annex item (ROP 3.3.4 and ROP A.3.3.4) as follows: 3.3.4* Biological Safety Cabinet. A ventilated cabinet for personnel, product and environmental protection having an open front withinward airflow for personnel protection, downward HEPA filtered laminar airflow for product protection, and HEPA filtered exhausted airfor environmental protection. A.3.3.4 Class II Type A1 cabinets (formerly designated Type A) - maintain minimum average inflow velocity of 75 ft/min (0.38 m/s) through the work access opening; - have HEPA filtered downflow air that is a portion of the mixed downflow and inflow air from a common plenum (i.e., a plenum fromwhich a portion of the air is exhausted from the cabinet and the remainder supplied to the work area); - may exhaust HEPA filtered air back into the laboratory or to the environment through an exhaust canopy; and - may have positive pressure contaminated ducts and plenums that are not surrounded by negative pressure plenumsType A1 cabinets are not suitable for work with volatile toxic chemicals and volatile radio nuclides. Class II, Type A2 cabinets (formerly designated Type B3) - maintain a minimum average inflow velocity of 100 ft/min (0.5 m/s) through the work access opening; - have HEPA filtered downflow air that is a portion of the mixed downflow and inflow air from a common exhaust plenum; - may exhaust HEPA filtered air back into the laboratory or to the environment through an exhaust canopy; and - have all biologically contaminated ducts and plenums under negative pressure or surrounded by negative pressure ducts andplenums. Type A2 cabinets used for work with minute quantities of volatile toxic chemicals and tracer amounts of radio nuclides required as anadjunct to microbiological studies must be exhausted through properly functioning exhaust canopies. Class II Type B1 cabinets - maintain a minimum average inflow velocity of 100 ft/min (0.5 m/s) through the work access opening; - have HEPA filtered downflow air composed largely of uncontaminated re-circulated inflow air; - exhaust most of the contaminated downflow air through a dedicated duct exhausted to the atmosphere after passing through a HEPAfilter; and - have all biologically contaminated ducts and plenums under negative pressure or surrounded by negative pressure ducts andplenums. Type B1 cabinets may be used for work treated with minute quantities of volatile toxic chemicals and tracer amounts of radio nuclidesrequired as an adjunct to microbiological studies if work is done in the direct exhausted portion of the cabinet, or if the chemicals orradio nuclides will not interfere with the work when re-circulated in the downflow air. Class II Type B2 cabinets (Sometimes referred to as "total exhaust") - maintain a minimum average inflow velocity of 100 ft/min (0.5 m/s) through the work access opening; - have HEPA filtered downflow air drawn from the laboratory or the outside air (i.e., downflow air is not re-circulated from the cabinetexhaust air); - exhaust all inflow and downflow air to the atmosphere after filtration through a HEPA filter without re-circulation in the cabinet orreturn to the laboratory; and - have all contaminated ducts and plenums under negative pressure, or surrounded by directly exhausted (non-re-circulated through thework area) negative pressure ducts and plenums. Type B2 cabinets may be used for work with volatile toxic chemicals and radionuclides required as an adjunct to microbiological studies.

Substantiation:

This addition provides a more accurate definition and correlation with National Sanitation Foundation, International (NSF).Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-9 Log #18 (1.4.23 Flammable Liquid)


Submitter: Anthony Hoffman, W. S. Nelson & Co., Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 1.4.23 Flammable Liquid. A liquid that has a closed-cup flash point below 37.8°C (100°F) and a maximum vapor pressure of 2068 mmHg (40 psia) at 37.8°C (100°F).

Substantiation:

The word "below" should replace the words "at or above". The current text of 1.4.33 is in conflict with the definition of CombustibleLiquid in 1.4.11, and does not agree with the definition given for Flammable Liquid in NFPA 497 (1997).Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Proposal 45-5 (Log #CP13) where the Committee is using the NFPA Glossary of Terms preferred definition from NFPA30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


6

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-10 Log #CP22 (1.4.32 Instructional Laboratory Unit [ROP draft 3.3.30])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 1.4.32 Instructional Laboratory Unit (ROP 3.3.30) as follows: 3.3.30 A laboratory unit used for education past the 12th grade and before post-college graduate level instruction for the purposes ofinstruction of six or more persons for four or more hours per day or more than 12 hours per week. Experiments and tests conducted ininstructional laboratory units are under the direct supervision of an instructor. Laboratory units used for graduate or post-graduateresearch are not instructional laboratory units.

Substantiation:

Clarification of the definition to clearly differentiate instructional laboratory units from educational laboratory units and to clarify theseparation of undergraduate labs and graduate/post graduate research labs.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-11 Log #CP18 (2.2.1 [ROP 4.2.1])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Add last sentence to Section 2.2.1 (ROP 4.2.1) as follows: “Liquefied flammable gases located outdoors shall not be included in the quantity calculations.”

Substantiation:

The tables are used to establish required fire protection features. Gases located outside will not be benefited by the indoor fireprotection requirements. In addition, it gives those users incentive to place the gas outside.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-12 Log #CP15 (Table 2.2.1(a) [ROP draft Table 10.1])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Add a footnote to Table 2.2.1(a) (ROP Table 10.1) to read as follows: “The quantities per 9.3 m2 (100 ft2) do not imply the quantities must be within that 9.3 m2 (100 ft2) area; the quantities per 9.3 m2 (100ft2) are for calculation purposes to determine the total quantity allowed.”

Substantiation:

This footnote clarifies a commonly asked advisory service question.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


7

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-13 Log #CP31 (Table 2.2.1(a) [ROP draft Chapter 10 (new), Table 10.1 and 9.2.2.6 (new)])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: 1. Insert new Chapter 10 Flammable and Combustible Liquids, relocating all the flammable and combustible liquid requirements there. 2. Insert into new Chapter 10 existing Table 2.2.1(a) (ROP Table 10.1), modified to include the following for the respective labs in thefirst column as shown below: A (high fire hazard) B (moderate fire hazard) C (low fire hazard) D (minimal fire hazard) 3. Insert a new 9.2.2.6 as follows: “Pressurized Liquid Dispensing Containers containing chemicals shall be in accordance with 10.4.”

Substantiation:

There are many requirements for flammable and combustible liquids throughout the standard and this is more user-friendly to havethem in one chapter. See Committee Proposal 45-57 (Log #CP30).Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Explanation of Negative: POBLETE: While I agree with the concept of creating Chapter 10, I disagree with placing Table 2.2.1(a) in Chapter 10. This tablebelongs in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 deals with the classification of laboratory units. Paragraph 4.2.1, uses the quantities in the table to define Class A, B, C, andD laboratory units. This is the sole purpose of the table. In Chapter 10, paragraph 10.1.1 requires the quantities in a laboratory unit of a given fire hazard classification meet the values in thetable for that fire hazard classification. Since a lab unit wouldn't be classified in a given classification unless it met the values in thetable, 10.1.1 is unnecessary.

45-14 Log #CP7 (Table 2.2.1(a) [ROP draft Table 10.1])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Add a footnote to ROP draft Table 10.1 as follows: See Section 4.2.2 for additional requirements for instructional and educational laboratories.

Substantiation:

The section provides additional requirements for educational/instructional labs, and should be noted. The table is found in the ROPdraft as Table 10.1.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


8

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-15 Log #17 (Table 2.2.1(a) and 2.2.1(b))


Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev/Western RegiionalRecommendation: Add a footnote to Tables 2.2.1(a) and (b) to read: Footnote: The maximum quantity allowed in below grade laboratory units shall not be greater than fifty percent of those listed.

Substantiation:

NFPA 30, IFC and UFC all prohibit Class I liquids in basements. Proposal and reason - to further limit the quantity of Class I liquids allowed in basement level labs. Fifty percent decrease based onprohibition in NFPA 30. If no hazard - NFPA 30 should also allow Class I in sprinklered basements. No other significant controls. Also, no maximum quantities provided for other hazardous materials (flammable solids, oxidizers and organic peroxides). Textstates...quantity limited to the minimum quantity necessary to perform the work being done. Toxics and highly toxics not addressed.

Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Class I liquids are allowed in basement labs because of the additional safeguards in NPFA afforded by compartmentalization required inChapter 3 and by sprinkler protection required in Section 4.1.3 to also address the firefighting access issue. Additionally, there are nodata provided to substantiate that 50% is a substantial reduction of risk for basement laboratory occupancies.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Explanation of Negative: KEEFER: Currently NFPA 45 allows the same quantities of flammable liquids in basements as allowed in other portions of the building,even though access, exiting, ventilation, and in some cases, fire protection may be compromised as compared to other floor levels of abuilding. Though substantiation was not presented that determines that a 50 percent decrease adds to safety, leaving current quantitylevels, does not.

45-16 Log #CP39 (Table 2.2.1(b) and 3.1.1(b))


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Delete Table 2.2.1(b) and Table 3.1.1(b).

Substantiation:

Sprinklers are now required for all new laboratories per CP 38.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Explanation of Negative: ST CLAIR: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 45-29 (Log #CP38).

45-17 Log #CP23 (2.2.2 and subsections [ROP draft 4.2.2 and subsections])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify Section 2.2.2 (ROP 4.2.2) and subsections as follows: 4.2.2 Additional Requirements for Educational and Instructional Laboratory Units. 4.2.2.1 Experiments and tests conducted in educational and instructional laboratory units shall be under the direct supervision of aninstructor. 4.2.2.2 Instructional laboratory units shall be classified as Class C or Class D laboratory units. 4.2.2.3 Educational laboratory units shall be classified as Class D or shall be limited to 50 percent of the flammable and combustibleliquids quantity for Class C laboratory units presented in Table 10.1.

Substantiation:

Information was provided on educational laboratory units that are different than instructional laboratory units. Also, it was never thecommittee’s intent to limit these labs to Class B only, and was rewritten to reflect this. The flammable and combustible liquid quantitiesremain approximately the same because half of Class B approximates those quantities allowed in Class C.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


9

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-18 Log #CP2 (2.3.1 [ROP draft 4.3.1])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify existing 2.3.1 (ROP draft 4.3.1) to include a new (6) maintaining the existing annex as follows: 4.3.1* A laboratory work area shall be considered to contain an explosion hazard if an explosion of quantities or concentrations ofmaterials, including but not limited to 2.3.1(1) through (6) could result in serious or fatal injuries to personnel within that laboratorywork area. (See Appendix C.) (1) Storage of materials with a Instability Hazard Rating of 4 (see B.2.5) (2) Use or formation of materials with a Instability Hazard Rating of 4 (see B.2.5) (3)* Presence of highly exothermic reactions such as polymerizations, oxidations, nitrations, peroxidations, hydrogenations, ororgano-metallic reactions (4) Use or formation of materials whose chemical structures indicate a potential hazard, but whose properties have not been established,such as triple bonds, epoxy radicals, nitro and nitroso compounds, and peroxides (5) Presence of high pressure reactions (see Figure C.4.5) (6) Other explosion hazards as determined by a qualified person.

Substantiation:

The Committee wanted to ensure that the 5 situations were not the only ones deemed to be an explosion hazard.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-19 Log #CP8 (Table 3.1.1(a) [ROP Table 5.1.1])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify Table 3.1.1(a) (ROP Table 5.1.1) as follows: 1. Add a table note to entries in table reading “not permitted”. The note will read: “Labs of this classification and size are notpermitted”. 2. Change the title to “Fire Separation Requirements for Sprinklered Laboratory Units” 3. Add a table note to the heading of the “Fire Separation” as follows:Separation in this table refers to separation from laboratory unit(s) to nonlaboratory areas and/or separations from laboratory unit(s) ofequal or lower hazard classification. 4. Make all the “less than” symbols into “less than or equal to” symbols.

Substantiation:

The Committee wished to clarify the intent that it is not the fire separation that is “not permitted”, but the lab classification/size itself. Beyond the definition of fire separation, the committee wished to clarification the intent of the fire separation in the table. The “less than or equal to” symbols were added to include the 10,000 ft2.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


10


Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part

Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. CommitteeRecommendation: Revise 3.1.4 as follows: 3.1.4 Table 3.1.1(a) shall pertain to laboratory units protected by automatic sprinkler systems in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard forthe Installation of Sprinkler Systems. Where the addition of water will create a serious fire or personnel hazard result in serious or fatalinjuries to personnel within that laboratory work unit or cause major property damage outside the laboratory work area, a suitablenon-water automatic extinguishing system shall be permitted to be an acceptable substitute for sprinklers.

Substantiation:

Automatic sprinklers are generally considered to be a superior fire-protection system, and the substitution of a non-waterextinguishing system should be discouraged. Section 2.3 sets forth an acceptable level of hazard posed to laboratory personnel and thephysical structure from the chemicals in use in the area on a daily basis. This revision correlates the level of hazard presented by theautomatic sprinkler system with the level of explosion hazard permitted in Section 2.3. It is appropriate to allow the same level ofhazard to be present from the fire-protection system as from the hazards presented in the laboratory unit or work area on a daily basisbefore an alternative system is permitted.

Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartCommittee Statement: The committee agrees in principle that sprinklers should be used whenever possible and an alternative should be used only when theycould introduce a personnel hazard. However, the committee rejected the proposed wording which allows an exemption when there’s apossibility for property damage outside the lab work area (thereby weakening the sprinkler requirements). The issue is covered in 3.4.1and A.4.2.1.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-21 Log #CP3 (3.1.7 [ROP draft 5.1.7])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify existing 3.1.7 (ROP 5.1.7) as follows: 5.1.7 Door assemblies in required 1-hour-rated fire separations shall be 3/4-hour rated. Door assemblies in required 2-hour-rated fireseparations shall be 1 1/2-hour rated.

Substantiation:

The Committee wanted to provide users the option of providing optional fire barriers without the burden of the 3/4 hour or 1 1/2 hourdoor assemblies. When the fire barrier is required however, the door assembly rating is still specified per 3.1.7.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-22 Log #CP24 (3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3 [ROP draft 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 (ROP 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3) as follows: 5.3.1 Class A, B and C laboratory units shall be classified as industrial occupancies in accordance with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code. 5.3.2 Educational laboratory units shall be classified as educational occupancies in accordance with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code. 5.3.3 Instructional laboratory units and Class D laboratories shall be classified as business occupancies in accordance with NFPA 101,Life Safety Code.

Substantiation:

The changes provide clarification of the text. The word "noninstructional" is not needed in this section, because life safetyrequirements for instructional and educational laboratories are stated in 3.3.2 and 3.3.3. In Section 3.3.3, the word "medical" was deletedsince a medical lab would be a Class D. The quantity of hazardous materials in any Class D laboratory would qualify as a businessoccupancy. The exception was deleted since NFPA 99 Section 1.5.2 (ROP draft 1.3.3) clarifies that NFPA 99 provides additionalrequirements for labs in healthcare occupancies.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


11



Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify Section 3.3.3 (ROP 5.3.4) to remove the word “medical” as follows: 5.3.3 Life safety requirements for instructional laboratory units for above grade 12, and for Class D laboratories located in facilitiesclassified as business occupancies, shall be in accordance with the NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, requirements for business occupancies.

Substantiation:

The word “medical” was removed since all Class D labs would be treated the same under NFPA 45, regardless of if they are medical ornot.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-24 Log #2 (3.4.1(1))


NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 45-7 (Log #CC17) which was held from the May 2000 ROC on Proposal 45-1.Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Delete ROP 3.4.1(1) which reads: “A laboratory work area contains fire and explosion hazards located so that an incident would block escape from or access to thelaboratory work area.”

Substantiation:

It is not the intent of the Committee to allow a work station with a high fire hazard potential (such as a fume hood not adjacent to theexit access) to avoid the requirement of a second means of escape from a laboratory. The Committee believes that proper lab designrequirements would prohibit a hazard such as this from existing.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Committee does not want to delete this requirement because the explosion hazard is a life safety hazard, potentially blocking theonly exit.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-25 Log #CP16 (3.4.1(5) and (6) [ROP draft 5.4.1(5) and (6)])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 3.4.1(5) and (6) [ROP 5.4.1(5) and (6)] as follows: (5) A flammable compressed gas cylinder larger than lecture bottle size [approximately 5 cm x 33 cm (2 in. x 13 in.)] located such that itcould prevent safe egress in the event of accidental release of cylinder contents. (6) A cryogenic container located such that it could prevent safe egress in the event of accidental release of container contents.

Substantiation:

The phrase “health hazard rating of 3 or 4” was deleted since these gases are required to be continuously ventilated per Section 8.1.4.1(ROP 11.1.4.1). Cryogen’s are considered a minimum NFPA 704 health hazard of 3 due to frostbite or irreversible tissue damage. Thesentences were reworded for clarity.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


12

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-26 Log #CP9 (3.4.2 (ROP 5.4.3 and 5.4.4))


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Move existing 3.4.2 to be immediately before 3.4.5, renumbering accordingly (ROP Sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4).

Substantiation:

The sections were moved beside each other for user-friendliness since both sections provided requirements for emergency lighting.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-27 Log #13 (3.6.1)


Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. CommitteeRecommendation: Revise to read: 3.6.1 Electrical receptacles, switches, and controls shall be located so as not to be subject to liquid spills and shall be located no lessthan 18 inches above the floor surface.

Substantiation:

This is a common requirement in places such as automotive shops where heavier than air flammable vapors could be present due to aspill or leak. Addition of this phrase would help to prevent fires by keeping an ignition source at a higher level.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: In Section 3.6.2, labs are unclassified electrically. However, in some conditions of hazard, it could be necessary to classify a lab workarea. The 18” solution may not be applicable for all potential fluids, lab geometries and other variables.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Explanation of Negative: KEEFER: Current language in NFPA 45 3-6.1 only instructs the Code user to use electrical receptacles, switches, and controls inlocations not subject to liquid spills, but gives the user no guidance as to what a safe location is. The proponent attempts to giveguidance by specifying 18 inches above floor level. The measurement comes from other nationally accepted Codes that use 18 inches asan acceptable level of placing equipment that may cause heat or a spark. This acts as a buffer to provide safety in areas subject to theaccidental spill of flammable liquids which may accumulate to their LEL at levels below 18 inches.

45-28 Log #CP50 (3.6.2 (ROP 5.6.2))


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 3.6.2 (ROP 5.6.2) to read as follows: “Laboratory areas, including the interiors of fume hoods, shall be permitted to be considered unclassified'' as defined in Article 500 ofNFPA 70, the National Electrical Code if a hazard assessment determines that it is not a hazardous location. Where other conditionsexist, consider the need for classification of the local area exposed.”

Substantiation:

It was asserted that all hoods under all conditions should not be automatically considered electrically unclassified. The committeerejected this proposal, but wished to maintain it in the ROP to obtain the benefit of public review and to make notice that there is apotential for this section at the ROC stage to be modified in this manner.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: It was asserted that all hoods under all conditions should not be automatically considered electrically unclassified. The committeerejected this proposal, but wished to maintain it in the ROP to obtain the benefit of public review and to make notice that there is apotential for this section at the ROC stage to be modified in this manner.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


13

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-29 Log #CP38 (4.2.1.1 and A.4.2.1 [ROP draft 6.2.1.1 and A.6.2.1])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 4.2.1.1 (ROP 6.2.1.1), deleting A.4.2.1 (ROP A.6.2.1) as follows: 6.2.1 Automatic Sprinkler Systems. 6.2.1.1 Automatic sprinkler system protection shall be required for all laboratories in accordance with the following: (1) Class A and Class B laboratories shall be in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, forOrdinary Hazard (Group 2) occupancies. (2) Class C and Class D laboratories shall be in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, forOrdinary Hazard (Group 1) occupancies.

Substantiation:

Sprinklers are the most effective way to rapidly control a fire. NFPA 5000 requires sprinklers when the quantities of chemicals in Table34.1.3.1 are exceeded in any occupancy. Laboratories are inherently more dangerous than most other occupancies because of the widevariety of operations (including manipulations of chemicals), number and variety of chemicals creating a multitude of hazards in a lab.Sprinkler protection should be extended to all laboratories, even those with relatively small quantities of hazardous chemicals, to meetthe objectives in 1.2.4. It is imperative to have a quick method of controlling a fire.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 23 Negative: 2

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Explanation of Negative: PUHLICK: 1) The proposed committee action to require automatic sprinkler protection in ALL laboratories, including existing,contains NO substantiation citing fire, injury or loss data. 2) The cost to existing owners will be HUGE. The retroactive provision will apply when a space in which a little over ONE GALLON ofsubstance such as FUEL OIL being used in a process or experiment is present. The cost/benefit ratio is excessive applied to this low of ahazard threshold even in new construction. 3) The proposal requires a full NFPA 13 system with it's referenced NFPA 72 fire alarm requirements. There is no reference to limitedarea systems off of domestic supplies, etc. for life safety purposes. 4) The requirement to provide a NFPA 13 system to the laboratory space only does not provide property protection which an insurerwill give credit for. ST CLAIR: This proposal would require the installation of sprinkler systems under any circumstances for laboratories covered by thisstandard. Although I generally agree with the concept in many instances, I am voting negative to this proposal because the feasibility ofthe installation of sprinkler systems in mobile laboratories was not addressed in this proposal and the impact to the regulatedcommunity was not fully taken into account. It was not known at the time of the proposal as to whether a sprinkler system could be installed in a mobile laboratory, since norepresentative of any company or expert involved in the manufacturing of mobile laboratories presented any information or any researchon the technical feasibility of the installation of sprinkler systems in mobile laboratories to the committee. Additionally the impact on the regulated community was not fully investigated at the time of the proposal. One example of anunexpected impact to the regulated community could be the following scenario: A new laboratory that contains less than 4 L of flammable liquid would not becovered by the standard and thus not required to install a sprinkler system. If you take the same laboratory and add a first aid kitcontaining hydrogen peroxide to the laboratory, the laboratory would then potentially be subject to the standard since aqueoussolutions of hydrogen peroxide carry a NFPA health rating of 2. Since there is no definition for the term "handle" in 1.1.2(3) andhydrogen peroxide meets the definition of "chemical" in 3.3.8, it appears that this chemical could be "handled" and would therefore beincluded in the determination of applicability. Since aqueous solutions of hydrogen peroxide carry a NFPA health rating of 2, thelaboratory could be subject to the standard. Thus, the requirement for the installation of a sprinkler system in the new laboratory thatwould normally be exempt from the standard would be triggered solely on the basis of a decision to have a first aid kit containinghydrogen peroxide in the laboratory. I believe that the impact of this proposal for many laboratory situations was not addressed thoroughly and should be reworked,reviewed, or rejected in order to fully understand the impact versus the benefits of this proposal on the regulated community.

14

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-30 Log #9 (4.2.1.3 (New) )


Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. CommitteeRecommendation: Add a new section to read: 4.2.1.3 Where the addition of water will result in serious or fatal injuries to personnel within the laboratory work unit or cause majorproperty damage outside the laboratory work area, a suitable non-water automatic extinguishing system shall be permitted to be anacceptable substitute for sprinklers.

Substantiation:

The alternative fire protection system is currently called out in 3.1.4 (Laboratory Unit Design and Construction) but does not appear inChapter 4 (Fire Protection). For clarity, the specific allowance for the alternative system should also be included in this Section relatingto Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartCommittee Statement: The committee agrees in principle that sprinklers should be used whenever possible and an alternative should be used only when theycould introduce a personnel hazard. However, the committee rejected the proposed wording which allows an exemption when there’s apossibility for property damage outside the lab work area (thereby weakening the sprinkler requirements). The issue is covered in 3.4.1and A.4.2.1.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-31 Log #14 (4.2.2)


Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. CommitteeRecommendation: Revise to read: 4.2.2 Other Automatic Extinguishing Systems. Where required or used in place of automatic sprinkler systems, special hazardextinguishing systems and nonwater automatic extinguishing systems shall be designed, installed, and maintained in accordance withthe following standards, as applicable: (1) NFPA 11, Standard for Low Expansion Foam (2) NFPA 11A, Standard for Medium? and High?Expansion Foam Systems (3) NFPA 12, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems (4) NFPA 12A, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems (5) NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (6) NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems (7) NFPA 17A, Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems (8) NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems (9) NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems (10) NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems

Substantiation:

Provides another alternative level of protection.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The change is shown in ROP Section 6.2.2 (10).Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


15

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-32 Log #CP11 (4.6.3.1(6) and A.4.6.3.1(6) [ROP draft 6.6.3.1(6)])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Insert new 4.6.3.1(6) [ROP 6.6.3.1(6)] as follows: 6.6.3.1 Plans for laboratory emergencies shall be developed and shall be made available to the authority having jurisdiction uponrequest. Such plans shall include the following: (1) Alarm activation (2) Evacuation and building re-entry procedures (3) Equipment shutdown procedures or applicable emergency operation (4) Fire-fighting operations (5)* Nonfire hazards (6) Information as required by the AHJ to allow the emergency responders to develop response tactics.

Substantiation:

This is another method by which an AHJ can require a facility to provide important information.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-33 Log #16 (5.9.5)


Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev/Western RegiionalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.9.5 The ventilation system shall be controlled by an approved continuous-reading combustible gas analyzing system that is arrangedto operate the ventilation system at the rate specified in 5.9.4 automatically upon detection of a specified flammable vapor concentrationthat is below the lower flammable limit. The detection system shall have sensors located throughout all ducts and tunnels. Sensors shallbe installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and they shall not exceed their listed spacing.

Substantiation:

Without the added text, there is no guidance on how many sensors should be installed. Fire officials have to subjectively decide what ismeant by “sensors located throughout all ducts and tunnels”. The added text clarifies how to decide how many sensors are required.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This section does not appear in NFPA 45.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Explanation of Negative: KEEFER: The proponent attempts to add language that makes the Code more user-friendly by asking that flammable gas sensors beinstalled in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements. Without this additional language, the possibility of differentrequirements for different jurisdictions exists. It leaves the term "located throughout", subject to interpretation by the individual AHJ.

45-34 Log #CP26 (6.3.3)


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Move and modify 6.3.3 and associated unchanged annex to be a new 6.2.2 (ROP 8.2.2) and renumber subsequent sections accordingly. 8.2.2* Laboratory units and laboratory hoods in which chemicals are present shall be continuously ventilated under normal operatingconditions.

Substantiation:

In the present location, lab hoods and other exhaust systems are not included in this requirement. It is the intent of the committee toinclude exhaust systems including hoods, therefore the section was moved to the “Basic Requirements” and the words “and laboratoryhoods” were added. It is understood that there are special circumstances where the ventilation would be interrupted, such as duringmaintenance or possibly the supply air during fire alarm initiation.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


16



Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 6.3.4 (ROP 8.3.4) as follows: 8.3.4 The air pressure in the laboratory work areas shall be negative with respect to corridors and nonlaboratory areas of the laboratoryunit except in the following instances: (1) Where operations such as those requiring clean rooms preclude a negative pressure relative to surrounding areas, alternate meansshall be provided to prevent escape of the atmosphere in the laboratory work area or unit to the surrounding spaces. (2) The desired static pressure level with respect to corridors and nonlaboratory areas shall be permitted to undergo momentaryvariations as the ventilation system components respond to door openings, changes in laboratory hood chemical fume hood sashpositions, and other activities that can for a short term affect the static pressure level and its negative relationship. (3) Laboratory work areas located within a designated hazardous electrically classified area with a positive air pressure system asdescribed in NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, Chapter 5, Pressurized Control Rooms.

Substantiation:

The change in the first sentence clarifies the intent of the committee that the pressure relationships are established within the lab unit.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-36 Log #3 (6.3.4 Exception No. 3 (New) )


NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 45-11 (Log #4) which was held from the May 2000 ROC on Proposal 45-1.Submitter: Horace C. Pouncey, Ciba Specialty ChemicalsRecommendation: Add the following exception: Exception No. 3: Laboratory work areas located within a designated hazardous classified area shall have a positive air pressure systemas described in NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, Chapter 5.

Substantiation:

As stated in NFPA 496, 5.3.2, “If the control room is in a classified location, it shall be designed to minimize the entry of flammablevapors, gases, liquids, or dusts.” If a production facility lab is located within a classified location, the lab must be designed not to allowexternal flammable vapors and gases into the work area. A negative air pressure system would suck the flammable vapors and gasesinside. The work area will require a positive air pressure system to be safe.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Modify 6-3.4 (ROP draft 8.3.5) as follows: 8.3.5 The air pressure in the laboratory work areas shall be negative with respect to corridors and nonlaboratory areas of the laboratoryunit except in the following instances: (1) Where operations such as those requiring clean rooms preclude a negative pressure relative to surrounding areas, alternate meansshall be provided to prevent escape of the atmosphere in the laboratory work area or unit to the surrounding spaces. (2) The desired static pressure level with respect to corridors and nonlaboratory areas shall be permitted to undergo momentaryvariations as the ventilation system components respond to door openings, changes in chemical fume hood sash positions, and otheractivities that can for a short term affect the static pressure level and its negative relationship. (3) Laboratory work areas located within a designated hazardous electrically classified area with a positive air pressure system asdescribed in NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, Chapter 5, Pressurized Control Rooms.Committee Statement: Editorial changes made including those to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style. The Committee wished to note that the submitter’ssecond sentence in his substantiation was limited to production facility labs and that the Committee notes that it is applicable to a widerscope of labs.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


17



Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 6.4.9 (ROP 8.4.10) as follows: 8.4.10 Only Class II, Type B2 biological safety cabinets listed by National Sanitation Foundation as meeting NSF Standard 49 shall bepermitted to be used in lieu of chemical fume hoods, as determined by a Qualified Person.

Substantiation:

These cabinets have 100% exhaust and can be safely used for some chemical procedures. The reference for this document is thefollowing: NSF/ANSI 49 - 2002, Class II (laminar flow) biosafety cabinetry. National Sanitation Foundation International, 789 NorthDixboro Road, P.O. Box 130140, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Explanation of Negative: KEEFER: The storage cabinets are fine, however the term "Qualified Person" is undefined.

45-38 Log #CP36 (6.8.3 [ROP draft 8.8.1.3])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 6.8.1.3 (ROP 8.8.1.3) and maintain existing annex item as follows: 8.8.1.3 Chemical fume hoods shall be provided with means of preventing overflow of a spill of 2 liters of liquid.

Substantiation:

The addition of the “2 L” quantifies and clarifies the intent of the existing requirement. The quantity was chosen because even in thesmallest of hoods, the 2 L quantity would still be considered a “small spill” that should be considered in the chemical fume hooddesign. The term “contain” was replaced with “preventing overflow” to clarify the objective of preventing spillage or leakage outsidethe hood.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-39 Log #CP43 (6.9.2 (ROP 8.9.2))


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: In Section 6.9.2 (ROP 8.9.2) delete “For new installations” as follows: 8.9.2 Chemical fume hoods shall not be located adjacent to a single means of access to an exit or to high-traffic areas.

Substantiation:

The standard is not retroactive per 1.1.3, so this statement is unnecessary.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


18

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-40 Log #CP37 (6.9.3 and A.6.9.3 (New) [ROP draft 8.9.3 and A.8.9.3 (New)] )


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 6.9.3 (ROP 8.9.3) and add an annex item as follows: 8.9.3 Work stations not directly related to the chemical fume hood activity shall not be located directly in front of chemical fume hoodopenings. A.8.9.3 Place low hazard activities (such as desks and microscope benches) away from the chemical fume hood. The term “directly infront of” does not include those areas that are separated by a barrier such as a lab bench or other large structure that would serve as ashield.

Substantiation:

This clarifies the intent that the area immediately in front of the hood is of greater hazard than other parts of the laboratory andpersonnel should not be needlessly exposed to this hazard.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-41 Log #CP19 (6.10.3, 6.10.4 [ROP draft 8.10.3, 8.10.4 and 8.10.5 (new)])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 6.10.3 (8.10.3 in ROP draft) to be multiple sections to comply with the manual of style. Delete the exception for the 90 degreesubduct and make it advisory material. Delete Exception 1 and the associated advisory material. Add a new 6.10.5 as follows: 8.10.3 The design and installation of ducts from chemical fume hoods shall be in accordance with NFPA 91, Standard for ExhaustSystems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids, except that specific requirements in NFPA45 shall take precedence. 8.10.3.1* Automatic fire dampers shall not be used in laboratory hood exhaust systems. A.8.10.3.1 In 2001 at the University of California, a fire resulted in an injury and caused approximately $3.5 million in damage. Basedon the investigation it was concluded that the practice of not having fire dampers on the exhaust duct of the ventilation system at theshaft wall appears to have been beneficial in this fire scenario. The investigation observed that the exhaust system was effective atremoving significant quantities of combustion products from the building during the fire, thereby reducing the amount of combustionproducts spreading to other areas of the building. The shutting down of the supply air by fire dampers did not significantly hinder theexhaust system since fresh air was provided though a broken window. However, if the window had not failed, team concluded that theexhaust system probably would not have performed as well. If protection of the openings is desired, one method is to use a subduct assembly. Where a branch duct connects to an enclosed exhaustriser located inside a shaft, which has a required fire resistance rating of 1 hour or more and in which the airflow moves upward,protection of the opening into the fire resistance rated enclosure shall should be made with a steel subduct turned upward a minimum of0.6 m (22 in.) in length and of a minimum thickness of 22 gauge [0.76 mm (0.030 in.)]. The steel subduct shall should be carried upinside the riser from each inlet duct penetration. This riser shall should be appropriately sized to accommodate the flow restrictioncreated by the subduct. 8.10.4 Fire detection and alarm systems shall not be interlocked to automatically shut down laboratory hood exhaust fans. 8.10.5 Proper door operation for egress shall be maintained when the supply system shuts down and the lab exhaust system operates,creating a pressure differential.

Substantiation:

Exception 2 was moved to the annex since the steel subduct is one method for protecting the duct since the dampers are prohibited; thematerial is advisory. Exception 1 and it’s annex were deleted since it is undesirable to shut down a fume hood in a fire situation. A newsection was added to prevent the entrapment of personnel in labs when the supply fan is shut down and the fume hood exhaust systemscontinue to run thereby exacerbating egress difficulties. Also an annex item was added to the prohibition of dampers describing a fireincident where this prohibition was beneficial.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Comment on Affirmative: MINISTER: Paragraph A.8.10.3.1 references a method to install a subduct in an exhaust riser. The method comes out of NFPA 90A4.3.4.6.2 and Figure A.4.3. This reference needs to be added to the text of A.8.10.3.1 to show the method is not original material to NFPA45, but is from another NFPA code. There were several questions about this method during the last couple of years and the referencewould help designers and code officials understand the source of the method.

19

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-42 Log #CP49 (6.10.5 (ROP 8.10.7))


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Add a new section 6.10.5 (ROP 8.10.7) and associated annex as follows: 8.10.7* Chemical fume hoods shall be installed in a manner that prevents fire or smoke from a fire in the chemical fume hood fromspreading into the voids above the ceiling. A.8.10.7 Installation of sprinklers in the void area or in the chemical fume hood is an acceptable method to prevent flame spread.

Substantiation:

A fire that spreads into the voids above the ceiling might not be contained to the room of origin and will not be controlled by thelaboratory sprinklers.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Comment on Affirmative: ANDERSON: Under Substantiation after: "controlled by laboratory" add "sprinklers". MINISTER: The statement under substantiation appears to be incomplete and should be completed.

45-43 Log #CP25 (7.2.1.3 [ROP draft 9.2.1.3])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify Section 7.2.1.3 [ROP 10.1.4.3(3)] as follows: (3) In educational and instructional laboratory work areas, containers for Class I or Class II liquids shall not exceed the followingcapacity: (a) safety cans of 8 L (2.1 gal). (b) other containers of 4 L (1.1 gal)

Substantiation:

Education was added to correct an omission and the former exception was reworded to positive language per the NFPA Manual of Style.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


20

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-44 Log #10 (7.2.2.7)


Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. CommitteeRecommendation: Revise to read: 7.2.2.7* Transfer of Class I liquids from containers having an individual capacity in excess of 19L (5 gal) or more capacity shall beconducted carried out as follows in (1) or (2): (1) In a separate area outside the building (2) Inside liquid storage areas specifically designed and protected for dispensing Class I flammable liquids that meet therequirements of NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.

Substantiation:

Section 7.2.2.6 allows the transfer of Class I liquids "…to smaller containers from bulk stock containers not exceeding 19L (5 gal) incapacity…. " in one of three areas: lab fume hoods, area with ventilation, or inside liquid storage area in accord with NFPA 30. Thisrevision corrects an overlap in requirements for a container with a capacity of 5 gallons.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Modify 7.2.2.6 and 7.2.2.7, maintaining the respective annex items (ROP 10.3.1 and 10.3.2) as follows: 10.3.1*Transfer of Class I liquids to or from containers less than or equal to 20 L (5.3 gal) in capacity shall be performed in one of thefollowing locations: (1) In a laboratory hood, or (2) In an area provided with ventilation adequate to prevent accumulations of flammable vapor/air mixtures from exceeding 25 percentof the lower flammable limit, or (3) Inside liquid storage areas specifically designed and protected for dispensing Class I flammable liquids that meet the requirementsof NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code. 10.3.2* Transfer of Class I liquids to or from containers greater than 20L (5.3 gal) shall be performed in one of the following locations: (1) In a separate area outside the building (2) Inside liquid storage areas specifically designed and protected for dispensing Class I flammable liquids that meet the requirementsof NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.Committee Statement: The section was editorially modified to comply with the manual of style and to make the two sections consistent. The englishconversion was changed from 5 gal to 5.3 and the metric 19 L to 20 L to more accurately reflect the available sizes. In addition, this isconsistent with NFPA 30. The material was moved to new ROP chapter 10, Flammable and Combustible Liquids.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Explanation of Negative: ANDERSON: This is an error the committee originally accepted this however when it became obvious that this change would beinconsistent with many areas of the document the committee voted to reject it. The change unintentionally increases 5 gallon thresholdto 5.3 gallons.

45-45 Log #CP46 ( 7.2.3 (ROP 9.2.3.1))


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 7.2.3 (ROP 9.2.3.1) as follows: 9.2.3.1 Hazardous chemicals stored in the open shall be stored in such a manner as to limit a spill scenario to less than 5-gallons.

Substantiation:

Quantification was provided to clarify the committee’s intent to minimize spill quantity. The quantity of 5-gallon was chosen becausequantities of 5 gallons or more are required to be transferred in an NFPA 30 flammable liquids transfer room.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


21

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-46 Log #11 (7.2.3.2)


Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. CommitteeRecommendation: Revise to read: 7.2.3.2 Container types and maximum capacities for flammable and combustible liquids shall comply with Table 7.2.3.2. Exception No. 1….(balance to remain unchanged).

Substantiation:

Since the Table only makes reference to flammable and combustible liquids, it can be inferred that the section only applies to thosematerials. However, the revision is proposed to clarify in the charging statement that the restriction on container types, and limitationson capacities, applies to flammable and combustible liquids and not any other hazardous materials in storage in the lab.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: This change appears in ROP 10.1.4.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-47 Log #CP51 (7.2.3.2 (ROP 10.1.4) )


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 7.2.3.2 (ROP 10.1.4) as follows (maintaining annex) as follows: 10.1.4* Container types and maximum capacities shall comply with Table 10.1.4 except as follows: (1) Break-resistant plastic-coated glass containers as large as 4 L (1.1 gal) shall be permitted to be used if needed and if the requiredpurity would be adversely affected by storage in a metal or an approved plastic container, or if the liquid would cause excessivecorrosion or degradation of a metal or an approved plastic container. (2) Containers of not more than 227 L (60 gal) capacity shall be permitted in a separate area inside the building if the inside area meetsthe requirements of NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.

Substantiation:

These bottles are resistant to breakage.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Comment on Affirmative: ANDERSON: The language doesn't read properly. It should read: "Where containers larger than the maximum allowable size containermust be used for purity purposes only break-resistant plastic-coated glass containers as large as 4 L (1.1 gal) shall be permitted to beused."

22

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-48 Log #4 (Table 7.2.3.2)


NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 45-15 (Log #2) which was held from the May 2000 ROC on Proposal 45-1.Submitter: William H. Barlen, Barlen & Assoc., Inc. / Rep. Airgas, Inc.Recommendation: Add a column to Table 7-2.3.2 as shown on the following page.

Substantiation:

In April 1993, B & J and Cryodyne asked the committee to address pressurized containers in the laboratory. It was not done and Iwould like to propose we add this category to address the use of these containers.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Add a row to Table 7-2.3.2 (ROP Table 10.1.4) as follows: Change the quantities in the proposed table to read as follows: IA = 4 L (1.1 gal) IB = 20 L (5 gal) IC = 20 L (5 gal) II = 227 L (60 gal) IIIA = 227 L (60 gal)Committee Statement: The committee agrees with the concept of recognizing this new type of container and the maximum size needs to be established. Thecommittee rejects the quantities proposed since the Committee currently has no data to prove quantities greater than those for the othermetal containers are safe. It is noted that the NFPA Research Foundation is completing tests in the Spring which could provide data toallow the Committee to increase the quantities, decrease the quantities or prohibit the containers.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-49 Log #CP6 (Table 7.2.3.2 (ROP Table 10.1.4))


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: In ROP Table 10.1.4, delete the “4” superscript in the IIIA column of the table.

Substantiation:

The referenced section in the footnote refers only to Class I and II, not Class IIIA liquids.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-50 Log #12 (7.2.3.6)


Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. CommitteeRecommendation: Add a new section to read as follows and renumber remaining sections: 7.2.3.6 Storage cabinets used for the storage of flammable and combustible liquids shall be constructed in accordance with NFPA 30,Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.

Substantiation:

The requirement for the construction of the cabinets resides in the definition of Storage Cabinet and should be located in the body ofthe standard.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


23

[45-48 (Log #4) Recommendation]

IA IB IC II IIIAPressurized Liquid Dispensing Container

20 L 227 L 227 L 227 L 227 L

24



NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 45-17 (Log #CC19) which was held from the May 2000 ROC on Proposal 45-56.Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Insert a new 8.1.3 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly. Move the existing A.8.1.2 to be a new appendix item to the new 8.1.3as follows: 8.1.3* Cylinders of Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrogen Bromide should be returned to the supplier within two years of the shippingdate. A.8.1.3 Cylinders of corrosive or unstable gases should be returned to the supplier when the expiration date of the maximumrecommended retention period has been reached. Examples of such corrosive or unstable gases include: (a) Acid and alkaline gases; (b) Gases subject to autopolymerization; and (c) Gases subject to explosive decomposition. Cylinders not in active use should be removed from laboratory work areas to a storage facility, as described in CGA Pamphlet P-1, SafeHandling of Compressed Gases in Containers. In the absence of a maximum recommended retention time, a 36-month interval should beused.

Substantiation:

This issue was assigned to a Task Group to study for the next cycle. The Committee noted that previous editions of NFPA 45 addressedthis question in the body of the standard. It is currently addressed in a general manner in A-8-1.2, but enough incidents have beenreported so that it should be moved back to the main body with the specific reference to hydrogen bromide.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This issue was assigned to a Task Group to study for the next cycle. The Committee noted that previous editions of NFPA 45 addressedthis question in the body of the standard. It is currently addressed in a general manner in A-8-1.2, but enough incidents have beenreported so that it should be moved back to the main body with the specific reference to hydrogen bromide.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Explanation of Negative: ANDERSON: Although currently addressed in a general manner in A-8-1.2, CGA Pamphlet P-1, Safe Handling of Compressed Gases inContainers that is adopted by reference by OSHA requires cylinders not in active use should be removed from laboratory work areas to astorage facility. Returning these cylinders to the vendor makes perfect sense. This proposal was supported by a special expert withsuperior knowledge and experiences on the subject study next cycle only delays the obvious.

45-52 Log #CP47 (8.2.3.2 (new) [ROP 11.2.3.4])


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Insert a new 8.2.3.2 (ROP 11.2.3.4) as follows: “An emergency gas shut-off device in an accessible location at the exit shall be provided in addition to the manual point-of-use valvein each educational and instructional laboratory space which has a piped gas dispensing valve.”

Substantiation:

An additional valve that is accessible is necessary to control the flow of gas in the event of an emergency for schools.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


25

Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-53 Log #CP45 (9.1.6.2 (ROP 12.1.6.2))


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 9.1.6.2 (ROP 12.1.6.2) as follows: 12.1.6.2 Glass apparatus containing gas or vapors under vacuum or above ambient pressure shall be shielded, wrapped with tape, orotherwise protected from shattering (such as engineering controls or by apparatus design) during use.

Substantiation:

Text revised to clarify that gases or vapors must be present in the glass apparatus to create a condition that could cause the glass tobreak under vacuum or pressure. The use of glass apparatus that is designed for use under pressure or vacuum should be allowed withoutany additional requirements.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25


45-54 Log #CP44 (9.1.6.4 (ROP 12.1.6.4))


Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 9.1.6.4 (ROP 12.1.6.4) as follows: 12.1.6.4 Flammable vapors evolved during drying operations shall be condensed, trapped, or vented to avoid ignition.

Substantiation:

The words “or combustible” were removed since vapors evolved from drying operations will be flammable and adding the word “gases”since drying operations can generate flammable gases.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25

Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Comment on Affirmative: MINISTER: Paragraph 12.1.6.4 was supposed to read "Flammable gases or vapors evolved...". The substantiation indicates that theword gases was added to the paragraph, but it does not appear in the text.

26



Submitter: James R. Streit, Los Alamos National LaboratoryRecommendation: Item 1: Revise NFPA 45, 9.2.2.1 as follows: 9.2.2.1* (Add asterisk on paragraph number). Item 2: Add new NFPA 45, A.9.2.2.1 as follows: Relocate/Renumber Figure A.9.2.2.2 to Figure A.9.2.2.1. Item 3: Revise NFPA 45, 9.2.2.2 as follows: 9.2.2.2* Refrigerators, freezers, and other cooling equipment used to store or cool flammable liquids shall be listed special purposeunits for use in laboratories in commercial occupancies or units listed for Class I, Division 1 locations, as described in Article 501 ofNFPA 70, National Electrical Code designed or modified as follows: (a) Any electrical equipment located within the outer shell, within the storage compartment, on the door, or on the door frame shall meetthe requirements for Class I, Division 1 locations, as described in Article 501 of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. (b) Electrical equipment mounted on the outside of the storage compartment shall be installed in one of the following ways: (1) To meet the requirements for Class I, Division 2 locations (2) To be located above the storage compartment (3) To be located on the outside surface of the equipment where exposure to hazardous concentrations of vapors will be minimal. Item 4: Revise NFPA 45, A.9.2.2.2 as follows: Relocate existing paragraphs 1, 5 [including items numbered (1) - (3)] and 6 to a new A.9.2.2.2.1. Retain same order of remainingparagraphs. Revise remaining A.9.2.2.2 paragraphs as follows: Protection against the ignition of flammable vapors in refrigerated equipment is available through three types of laboratoryrefrigerators: explosion proof, “laboratory-safe” (or “explosion-safe”), and modified domestic models. Explosion proof refrigeration equipment...of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. Refrigerators and freezers listed as “CommercialRefrigerators and/or Freezers for Hazardous Locations” (e.g., listed for Class I, Division 1 Groups C and D locations) are examples ofsuitable explosion proof refrigeration equipment. The design concepts...of floor level vapors. Listed flammable materials storage refrigerators and freezers (e.g., special purpose unitslisted per Underwriters Laboratories UL471, “Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers”) are typically limited to not more than 10-gal ofliquid storage capacity and are commonly utilized in commercial laboratory and health care facility (See NFPA 99, Standard for HealthCare Facilities) laboratory occupancies. In general,...domestic models. Item 5: Add new NFPA 45, 9.2.2.2.1 as follows: 9.2.2.2.1* Domestic refrigerators, freezers, and other cooling equipment shall be permitted to store or cool flammable liquids ifmodified as follows: (a) Any electrical equipment located within the outer shell, within the storage compartment, on the door, or on the door frame shall meetthe requirements for Class I, Division 1 locations, as described in Article 501 of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. (b) Electrical equipment mounted on the outside of the storage compartment shall be installed in one of the following ways: (1) To meet the requirements for Class I, Division 2 locations (2) To be located above the storage compartment (3) To be located on the outside surface of the equipment where exposure to hazardous concentrations of vapors will be minimal. Item 6: Add new NFPA 45, A.9.2.2.2.1 as follows: Relocate existing paragraphs 1, 5 [including items numbered (1) - (3)] and 6 from A.9.2.2.2 to a new A.9.2.2.2.1. Retain same order ofremaining paragraphs. Delete last sentence of paragraph 6, as follows: The use of domestic...easily accumulate. Although not considered...including the following: (1) Relocation...compartment. (2) Removal...openings. (3) Replacement...gaskets. Regardless...properly used. Figure A.9.2.2.2 gives examples of labels that can be used on laboratory refrigerators.

Substantiation:

Proposal better brings into alignment NFPA 45 and 99 on the topic of refrigerated storage of flammable liquids and emphasizes that acommercially-available listed storage device is the preferred option over a modi

Documents

Laboratories Using Chemicals Brenda L. Bronson, Andrew … · 2016. 2. 23. · Report of the Committee on Laboratories Using Chemicals Brenda L. Bronson, Chair U.S. General Services