NFPA Journal - March/April 2018 - 40

Kristin Bigda, principal fire protection engineer at
NFPA, on the event that led to the creation of NFPA
652, Fundamentals of Dust:
On February 7, 2008, 14 workers were killed and 36
others were burned and injured after a series of sugar
dust explosions at the Imperial Sugar Company
manufacturing facility in Port Wentworth, Georgia. The
U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) later concluded that
the initial dust explosion had originated in an enclosed
steel belt conveyor. Located just below the sugar silos,
high concentrations of sugar dust had accumulated inside the enclosure. The initial explosion stirred up more
sugar dust that
had built up on
floors and other
surfaces, causing
a chain reaction
of additional
dust explosions
through the
buildings. Fires
resulting from
the explosions
destroyed the
packing buildings, silos, and
palletizer building
and severely damaged parts of the
GAME CHANGER The result of a 2008
refinery and sugar
combustible dust explosion at an Imperial
loading area.
Sugar Company processing facility.
After several
investigation
reports and studies, the CSB recommended that the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
develop a comprehensive federal standard to address
the numerous workplace hazards found in facilities
where combustible solids are handled, used, or stored.
A few years later, NFPA formed the committee that
would write NFPA 652, a document now considered to
be the fundamental document for combustible dust.
The standard establishes minimum requirements for
managing combustible dust hazards and directs the
user to other NFPA standards for industry- and commodity-specific requirements.

Read full
versions of
these posts
and many
others from
technical
staff at NFPA
Xchange,
online at
nfpa.org/
community

NFPA principal engineer Jon Hart on the trend of
micro-hospitals, which could have future ramifications for NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, and NFPA 99,
Health Care Facilities Code:
Typically designed with 15,000 to 25,000 squarefeet of space, micro-hospitals are a concept that has
gained a lot of traction over the past couple of years.
These buildings are neither urgent-care centers nor
full-service hospitals, but allow health care providers to
increase access to care without incurring the cost of
new huge infrastructure projects.
While a fraction of the size of traditional hospitals,
depending on the services they provide and patient

40 | NFPA JOURNAL * M A R C H /A P R I L 2 0 1 8

RECENT BLOGS BY NFPA
TECHNICAL STAFF

populations, micro-hospitals still may be classified as,
and be required to meet the same level of protection
as, traditional hospitals. The requirements for medical
gas and vacuum systems and electrical systems will
be based on the risk assessment approach defined
in NFPA 99. A multidisciplinary committee should be
brought together to look at the expected services and
patient populations of micro-hospitals to determine
the inputs that would go into this risk assessment.
Greg Harrington, principal fire protection engineer
at NFPA, on how to tell what rating is required for a
fire door. It's not as simple as it seems.
When I'm asked, "What is the required rating for a door
in a particular wall?" nine times out of 10 my answer
is, "It depends." (This is the standard answer for nearly
everything code-related.) In the Life Safety Code®, required ratings for doors and other opening protectives
(e.g., windows) depend on the required hourly fireresistance rating of the barrier in which the opening is
located and the function the barrier is serving.
Not all fire barriers are created equal. A door in
an exit enclosure fire barrier will probably require a
different rating than a door in a similarly rated corridor
or hazardous area enclosure-or a smoke barrier, or
a smoke partition, or a shaft enclosure (you get the
idea). At first glance it may seem convoluted, but the
code does a good job of consolidating the opening
protective rating requirements in one location. In the
2018 edition, you'll find the required door rating in
Table 8.3.3.2.2.
Kristin Bigda on a new section in NFPA 1 that prescribes, for the first time, minimum fire prevention
inspection frequencies for existing occupancies:
Section 10.2.7 was added, in part, to recognize the publication of new NFPA 1730, Organization and Deployment of Fire Prevention Inspection and Code Enforcement, Plan Review, Investigation, and Public Education
Operations, and in addition, to provide guidance to
AHJs and inspectors for ensuring existing occupancies
remain in compliance with the fire code.
The frequencies of the fire prevention inspection
are based on the occupancy risk classification. Table
10.2.7.1 includes four classifications: high, moderate,
low, and critical infrastructure with frequencies ranging
from annual to triennially, or per the AHJ. What is a
high-risk occupancy? What is critical infrastructure?
The 2018 edition of the code also added the corresponding definitions from NFPA 1730 to Chapter 3 to
assist with the application of the new table. For example, a low-risk occupancy is "an occupancy that has a
history of low frequency of fires and minimal potential
for loss of life or economic loss." Examples of low-risk
occupancies are storage, mercantile, and business.
How does your jurisdiction manage fire prevention
inspections for existing buildings? Do you use the
provisions in NFPA 1730? What issues have you faced
with existing building inspection?

AP/WIDE WORLD

In Compliance Xchange

http://www.nfpa.org/community

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of NFPA Journal - March/April 2018