DSS128: NFPA 660-Upcoming NFPA Changes & What They Mean For Combustible Dust Safety with Jason Krbec, Part 1

Today’s episode of the Dust Safety Science podcast is a replay of the keynote presentation from Day 2 of the 2021 Global Dust Safety Conference. Jason Krbec, Engineering Manager at CV Technology, explained why combustible dust standards were being consolidated, went over the events leading up to the formation of NFPA 652 and 660, and emphasized why it’s important to change at this time.

Jason started the presentation by explaining that NFPA 660 is currently in the process of being created. In 2006, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board published an extensive report about combustible dust. This report, which outlined events that had been reported over a span of approximately 25 years, brought combustible dust hazards to the attention of North American safety professionals.

“It took real hold here in the United States with OSHA,” Jason says. “OSHA saw the CSB report in 2007 and basically decided, “Hey, we need to start looking at what we do about this combustible dust problem in industrial facilities here.” And that gave birth to a national emphasis program.”

The CSB study broke down the various industry-specific standards. Coal and carbon are addressed by the chemical standard while food and beverage fall under the umbrella of the food and agricultural standard. NFPA 664 is the wood standard.

You see a huge difference in safety as you go from industry to industry

“What makes combustible dust safety unique in those industries is sometimes the nature of the materials, how they behave. But more often, it’s the processes,” Jason says. “What industrial processes do you see there? What safety culture do you see in those industries, especially around hazards of the materials that they’re handling? So that’s where you see a huge difference in safety, and maybe even you might call it a gap in safety as you go from industry to industry.”

This disparity set the ball rolling for the eventual formation of NFPA 660.

OSHA issued a National Emphasis Program (NEP) in 2007. A year later, the Imperial Sugar explosion occurred in Savannah, Georgia. OSHA responded by adjusting the NEP and the NFPA started considering a better standard for combustible dust.

“They had these industry and commodity-specific standards- the fundamental standard NFPA 652 did not exist at that stage,” Jason says. “If you looked at any of them back then, you would have realized we have a problem here – they’re not very universal. There were even conflicts amongst them – in some cases, large conflicts. There were gaps in some of them. Even if you operated a facility that might be classified as two different types of operations, you’d have a lot of trouble getting those two industry commodity standards to match up to make sure you had uniform safety in your facility.”

When NFPA 652 came out in September 2015, its goal was to be the fundamental standard

When NFPA 652 came out in September 2015, its goal was to be the fundamental standard: basic principles, basic requirements for understanding fire and explosion hazards in relation to combustible dust.

“It did that,’ Jason confirms. “That standard has improved safety greatly throughout industry. At the same time, you have a fundamental standard that you have to use to learn the basics, then you have a commodity-specific standard. You can see how there can be some gaps or conflicts, or again, language doesn’t match up.”

A correlating committee was formed to oversee all combustible dust standards and ensure that they were developed to match one another. The goal was to take the structure and format of NFPA 652 and apply it to industry and commodity-specific standards.

“That correlating committee took on that task of directing what needed to be done,” Jason says. “Their goal was to have continuity between the combustible dust standards and include things like definitions, the general structure, the chapter structure, what is covered, what isn’t covered.”

References were another issue. Some of the standards referenced each other, and if one revision cycle looked different from the other, it caused gaps. Therefore, syncing up the revision cycles became another goal for the correlating committee.

Another thing that came out of NFPA 652 was the dust hazard analysis

“Another thing that came out of NFPA 652 was the dust hazard analysis, a newer concept here in North America,” Jason says. “It was doing a hazard assessment or analysis on a process that handles combustible dust. This is a really critical requirement that has really improved safety here in North America.”

Progress has been made. The goal of NFPA 660 is to create a clarity and uniformity that makes it easier to follow combustible dust safety standards across the different industries.

Conclusion

“The general point is a clear standard because less combustible dust incidents, right?” Jason says. “ And that’s what we’re trying to do by having these standards out there – it’s to eliminate combustible dust hazards and eliminate incidents that occur from those hazards. Eliminate the hazards, we can lower the risk. We can mitigate the risk. We can get to zero incidents.”

If you would like to discuss further, leave your thoughts in the comments section below. You can also reach Jason Krbec directly:

Tel: 561-318-4051
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-krbec-5304b657/
Website: https://cvtechnology.com/

If you have questions about the contents of this or any other podcast episode, you can go to our ‘Questions from the Community’ page and submit a text message or video recording. We will then bring someone on to answer these questions in a future episode.