Media continues to ignore the BC Fire Code

"Standards addressing the explosive dangers of wood dust were not set until after the second deadly explosion in April of this year." This is totally inaccurate as the BC Fire Code referencing the NFPA combustible dust standards has for years been the standard in British Columbia regarding workplace combustible dust fire and explosion hazards. The BC Office of the Fire Commissioner enforces the BC Fire Code not WorkSafeBC. Continuing to ignore the BC Fire Code will have severe consequences for all facilities that generate combustible dust.

Solely singling out sawmills in British Columbia is a sure path to disaster. The question is not if, but when the next combustible dust related incident will occur at a facility that has no relationship to sawmills. All stakeholders that handle, process, or generate combustible dust must make a concerted effort in familiarizing themselves with the BC Fire Code referencing the NFPA combustible dust standards. Currently stakeholders are on borrowed time while the clock is ticking.

NEMA Type 9 Enclosures Only for Class II Hazardous Locations?

Currently NEMA only defines Type 9 Enclosures for Class II Hazardous Locations. In contrast, Dusttight enclosures are referenced in NEMA 250 solely for Nonhazardous Locations.(Table 1) This conflicts with NFPA 70 Articles 500 & 502 in addition to the OSHA HazLoc regulation 1910.307 where dusttight enclosures are compliant in Class II Division 2 HazLoc.

Would clarification in future revisions of NEMA 250 assist stakeholders in providing consistency with NFPA 70 Articles 500 & 502 and the OSHA HazLoc regulation regarding dusttight enclosures in Class II Division 2 HazLoc?

Resource
NEMA Enclosures for Nonhazardous & Hazardous Locations