Report of Commlttee on Mining Fac111tles x Guy A Johnson Chairman U S Bureau of M~nes E Sanford Bell V~ce Chairman R B Jones Corp W~lham H Pomroy Secretary U S Bureau of M~nes (Nonvoting) Charles F Avert11 Gmnnell F~re Protection Systems Co Inc Roland J Larsh Ansul Co Rep NAS & FCA J Richard Lucas V~rg~nla Polytechnlcal & State Un~verslty R~chard G Brown AMAX Inc Walter T Magera U S M~n~ng Enforcement & Safety Adm~n J L Buckley Factory Mutual Research Corp John Nagy Library PA Donald E Burkhart Jr FMC ~orp Wlll~am J Penly Marquette Cement Manufacturing Co Donald C Clark The Hartford Insurance Group Rep Portlant Cement Assn Dab~d G Czartoryskl Flat Top Insurance Agency Rolf W Roley Roley & Roley Engineers W Carl Cr~ner Mine Safety Bureau Idaho Wlll~am T Tr~nker The M~ll Mutuals Len Hansson Bucyrus Erie Co Robert L Vines B~tum~nous Coal Operators Assn Inc Howard R Healey American Risk Management Inc James H W~nger U S National Bureau of Standards Will B Jameson Consolldated Coal Co Thomas L deL~me Ill K~dde Bellewlle James W Jewett Deere & Co Rep Amerlcan Society of Agricultural Engineers Alternates Byron C Brumbaugh Henderson M~ne AMAX Leland J Hall The M~ll Mutuals (Alternate to R~chard G Brown) (Alternate to W T Tr~nker) Paul H Dobson Facory Mutual Research Corp (Alternate to J L Buckley) Thls hst represents the membershlp at the time the Commlttee was balloted on the text of thls edltlon Since that tlme changes in the membershlp may have occurred The Committee on M1nlng Fac111tles proposes for adoptlon its Report on a new document NFPA 121 1981 Standard on Fire Protectlon for Moblle Surface M1~ing Equlpment Thls Report has been submltted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Mlnlng Fac111tles whlch conslsts of 23 votlng members of whom 15 voted affirmatively 5 negatlvely (Messrs C Averlll J Buckley D Burkhart R Larsh and J Nagy) and 3 ballots not returned (Messrs C W Grlner W Penly and R Roley) Mr Averlll voted negatlvely for the following reasons 1 In the scope the reference to safeguardlng 11fe should be deleted The imphcatlon is that if one follows the recon~nendatlons of thls standard anyone on the moblle equlpment would be safe from bodlly injury or death Thls of course is not true and because of the attltude In the llab111ty area could lead to legal comphcatlons for NFPA i I suggest the scope be rewsed to read Thls standard covers m~nlmum requirements for the protectlon of self propelled mobile surface mn~ng equlpment from flre and related hazards 2 Paragraph 2 3 2 2 is inapproprlate as wrltten If the llstlng of agents following the openlng statement is In fact intended to 11lustrate agents used in mnlng uslng the broad connotatlon of the word mlnlng the the informatlon does not belong in thls standard If on the other hand It is the intent to llst suppressants commonly used on surface mlnlng equlpmeent then the paragraph should so state I also questlon the llsting of foam as an agent for use off Class A materlals Whlle it may have some affect on a Class A flre I can thlnk of very few if any circumstances where it would be the agent of choice Mr Buckley voted negatlvely for the followlng reasons Paragraph 3 1 6 3 An on board f~re detection and suppresslon system should be automatlc wlthout quantlflcat~on Mr Burkhart voted negatively for the following reasons I feel that the proposed standard ~s to broad and there are not suff~clent specific requirements I believe that a standard should set mln~mum requirements and th~s does not Too much of the standard is devoted to general flre protection principles and theory and an overview of flre protection technology There }s not one specific mln~mum requirement for f~xed automatic or portable f~re protectlon equlpment Mr Larsh voted negatively for the following reasons Although a great deal of ~nformatlon ~s listed ~n the appendices there ~s no consistent c~tlng of NFPA standards ~n the body of th~s proposed standard which ~s where they should be c~ted An additional comment on the citlng of NFPA standards ~s they should not include the date of the standard In this proposed standard they are citing both ways There is some ~nformat~on }n th~s proposed standard which belongs ~n the appendix and some informat~on ~n the appendix which really belongs In the standard For example the term flame proof ~s not defined but ~s used ~n the standard The same term ~s defined in the appendlx and ~nd~cates in th~s definition that the term ~s mslead~ng and its use should be described ~n favor of flame retardant of flame resistant The standard does not clearly address the sltuat~on when a vehicle ~s ~n a maintenance area and what f~re protection ~s required within the maintenance area in addition to that on the vehicle as opposed to the s~tuat~on where the vehicle ~s being worked upon but not necessarlly in a maintenance area and what flre protection ~s requlred In that sltuatlon Paragraph 1 3 1 Delete the last 3 words ~n the sentence Paragraph 2 1 Make the def~n~tlons of the classes of f~re consistent w~th those ~n NFPA IOA Section 2 2 It Is recommended that th~s ~nformatlon be c~rculated through the NFPA 72E Committee and because of the extent to which detectlon ~s treated ~n th~s proposed standards ~t ~s also recommended that a formal l~a~son be established with the NFPA 7Z~ ~omm~ttee Paragraph 2 3 1 It ~s recommended that the descriptions of the various flre suppression agents that are ~ncorporated ~n other NFPA standards ~ e NFPA10 12 12A 12B 17 11 11A 11B etc be used There was an addlt~onal general comment that ~nd~cated a need to critically review all of sectlon 2 3 1 in terms of the mechanisms of extinguishment proposed For example ~n 2 3 1 3 dry powder ~s used on Class D metal f~res to remove oxygen from the burning metal Thls ~s clearly an incorrect statement and should be corrected Paragraph 2 3 1 6 Delete the term vaporlz~ng l~qu~d and it should also be noted that the various halon agents should be ~dent~fled as their physlcal and chem}cal properties do dlffer Paragraph 2 3 1 7 It Is recommended that the term loaded stream be used in lieu of antifreeze solution There was also a question regarding the mechanlsm of ext~ngulshment in terms of breaking the combustion chain reactlon Paragraph 2 3 2 2 It ~s recommended that the approach taken in NFPA 803 Chapter 13 be used in this section Th~s approach consists of c~ting the extinguishing agents based on the fuel classlf~catlon ~n the hazard For example for Class A hazards the extinguishing agent shall be selected from the following types water foam Halon 1211 or mult~ purpose dry chemcal only It ~s further recommended that the use of the term antifreeze be deleted ~n all f~re classes and be replaced by loaded stream where appropriate Class D flres 288 should be treated the same as paragraph 13 1 2 4 on page 45 of NFPA 803 1978 The sentence beglnnlng with inert materials in this classlflcatlon should also be deleted Paragraph 2 3 2 2 The exemptlon for automatic sprinklers under B 2 is questioned Paragraph 2 3 3 3 It ~s recommended that NFPA 17 and NFPA 12 or 12A be used as a cross reference for the deflnltlons of local apphcatlon and total floodlng Paragraph 2 3 4 3 It was recommended that this paragraph be reworded as in its present form it Is confusing No rewording was suggested Paragraph 3 i 5 Change this paragraph to include that the inspection maintenance testing of detection and suppression equipment shall be in accordance w~th the requirements of apphcable NFPA standards and the manufacturer s recommendations Paragraph 3 i 6 2 Thl~paragraph as wrltten does not constitute a requlrement and cannot remain in the body of the standard It was also suggested that the term engine be deflned Paragraph 3 i 6 4 Change to indicate that all detection and suppresslon equlpment and systems shall be tested after installatlon in accordance with the requirements of the applicable NFPA standards and manufacturer s or designer s lnstructlons Paragraph 3 1 6 5 Change to read where electrical power is the sole means of systems actuation a back up source of power shall be provided Paragraph 3 1 6 6 Delete thls paragraph as it contradicts paragraph 3 1 6 5 Paragraph 3 i 9 2 Define the term pre plan it is vague as used in thls context Paragraph 3 2 3 1 In the first sentence change it to its In the second sentence drop the term sultable preceding trained Paragraph 3 2 3 2 Change to read cutting and welding equlpment to be used shall be In good repair Paragraph 3 2 3 6 First sentence change of to its Paragraph 3 2 3 7 It was recommended that NFPA 327 be reviewed to insure that it required some kind of determlnatlon of the chemical composition of the atmosphere i e gas detector prlor to the issuance of a work permit involving welding or cuttlng of tanks Paragraph 3 2 3 9 Delete the word suitably preceding protected Paragraph 3 2 3 10 The term minor fire must be defined or replaced Paragraph 3 2 3 12 Rewrite as follows when welding or cuttlng is to be performed a program of systematic planning involvlng malntenance operatlng and loss prevention personnel shall be required by management The use of a welding permlt system shall be required by management The use of weldlng permt system shall be consldered by management Paragraph 3 2 5 It is recommended that this entire paragraph be moved to the scope statement at the beginning of the standard This statement as presently wrltten does not constitute a fire protection requlrement Appendix A All of the terms used here should to the greatest extent possible reflect standardized NFPA deflnltlons If a standard