Technical Committee on Explosives

Technical Committee on Explosives

Date: March 21, 2017

To: Technical Committee on Explosives

From: Eric Nette, Staff Liaison/Engineer

Re: Agenda Package – NFPA 495/498 Second Draft Meeting – April 5, 2017 (F2017)

Enclosed is the agenda package for the April 5, 2017 meeting for the NFPA 495/498 Second Draft

Meeting. Please ensure that you have reviewed the public comments and the other agenda items in

advance to prepare for discussion. The agenda (which includes the public comments) will be posted on

the document information pages (www.nfpa.org/495next and www.nfpa.org/498next).

Some items to have available during the meeting include:

Agenda package

A copy of NFPA 495/498 (visit the NFPA 495/498 Document information pages for your free

committee copy)

Any previous copies of the technical committees standard

A laptop

Optional items that are sometimes useful include:

Review of NFPA’s Process, www.nfpa.org/regs

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to reach me at (617) 984-7434 or by e-mail at

[email protected]. I look forward to our meeting to continue the revision cycle!

http://www.nfpa.org/495next

http://www.nfpa.org/498next

http://www.nfpa.org/regs

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

NFPA 495/498 F2017 Second Draft Meeting

April 5, 2017

(US Toll Free) Telephone Number: 1-866-398-2885

http://nfpa.adobeconnect.com/nette/

Enter the following detail when prompted:

Participant Code: 691847

1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern)

1. Meeting opening, introduction and attendance

2. Approval of First Draft Meeting Minutes of March 29-31, 2016 (Attachment A. March 29-31,

2016 Meeting Minutes).

3. Chair's remarks, Lon Santis

a. Nonparticipation

4. Staff Liaison update:

a. F2017 Schedule (Attachment B. F2017 Revision Cycle)

b. Committee Membership Update (Attachment C. EXP-AAA Membership)

c. Standards Process Review (Attachment D. NFPA Process – Quick Reference Guide)

5. Old/New Business –Order of Consideration/Schedule for Task Group Work and Public

Comments

a. Public Comments for NFPA 495/498 (Attachment E. NFPA 495/498 - A2017 Public

Comments)

6. Other business

7. Date/Location of Next Meeting. TBD, next meeting will be during the next revision cycle

8. Adjournment

Attachments:

A. March 29-31, 2016 Meeting Minutes

NFPA Technical Committee on Explosives NFPA 495 and NFPA 498 April 5,2017 Second Draft Agenda Page 1 of 33

http://nfpa.adobeconnect.com/nette/

B. F2017 – Revision Cycle

C. EXP-AAA Committee Membership

D. NFPA Process – Quick Reference Guide

E. NFPA 495/498 - F2017 Public Comments


Attachment A:

March 29-31, 2016

Meeting Minutes


EXP-AAA First Draft Meeting Minutes - March 29-30, 2016

1

Technical Committee on Explosives (EXP-AAA)

Minutes of Meeting Baltimore Marriott Inner Harbor at Camden Yards

110 S Eutaw St, Baltimore, MD 21201

March 29-30, 2016 I. Attendance

II. Principal Members/Staff

Lon Santis, Chair, Explosives Risk Managers, LLC, MD Eric Nette, Staff Liaison, NFPA, MA

Robert Bachman, Winchester Ammunition, MS Ben Barrett, DG Advisor, WY Clark Bonner, Dyno Nobel Inc., UT (via webconferencing) John Capers, Austin Powder Company, OH Matt Egloff, Montana Tech, University of Montana, MT Kenneth Eltschlager, US Department of the Interior, PA Frank Fenton, The Township of Northampton, PA J. Winston Forde, International Society of Explosives Engineers, OH Lawrence Lyon, Orbital ATK Corporate Safety, MN Tod Ossmann, Willis Towers Watson, NY Ali Reza, Exponent, Inc., CA Glen Saraduke, Saraduke Technical Services, Inc., CO David Shatzer, Shatzer & Associates Consulting, PA Arthur Stithem, Battelle/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, WA Ronald Thomas, Institute of Makers of Explosives, UT

Alternate Members and Guests:

Nancy Pearce, NFPA Staff, MA Matt Spencer, Hornady Manufacturing Company, NE Dennis Davis, US Forest Service, MT

III. Meeting Minutes: 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 a.m. on March 29, 2016. The

Chair welcomed the Technical Committee (TC) members and guests to the meeting. 2. Chair’s Remarks. The chair discussed the process for reviewing and revising the

document. 3. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of March 27, 2012 and Pre-First Draft Meetings were

approved as written.



2

4. Staff Liaison Report. The staff liaison made a brief presentation on NFPA policies and procedures, the new standards process, reviewed the document revision timeline and updated the TC on membership changes.

5. Old Business: a. Electrical Classification Task Group Report. This task group was formed to come

up with code language on the use of classified electrical areas in NFPA 495. The work was completed and submitted as a PI prior to the meeting.

b. Exploding Targets Task Group Report. The recent incidents involving Exploding Targets was explored by this task group to decide where NFPA 495 applies and if there should be future revisions to address this issue. The work was completed and submitted as a PI prior to the meeting.

c. NFPA 498 Task Group Report. This task group was tasked with updating NFPA 498. A presentation was made by Ron Thomas (Chair) during the meeting.

6. New Business: a. NFPA 495. The Committee reviewed and resolved all the public input. The

Committee developed 8 First Revisions. The Committee responses to the public input, first revisions and committee statements will be posted in the First Revision Report to be posted no later than September 8, 2016. The First Draft Report will be available via http://www.nfpa.org/495.

b. NFPA 498. The Committee reviewed and resolved all the public input. The Committee developed 2 First Revisions. The Committee responses to the public input, first revisions and committee statements will be posted in the First Revision Report to be posted no later than September 8, 2016. The First Draft Report will be available via http://www.nfpa.org/498.

c. NFPA 400 Report. Nancy Pearce, NFPA Staff Liaison, gave a presentation on the recent changed made by the NFPA 400 committee in regards to Ammonium Nitrate storage. The committee considered these changes in regards to how to treat Ammonium Nitrate storage when it comes into the scope of NFPA 495 as a blasting agent.

d. Ammonium Nitrate Separation Report. The committee reviewed the report of experiments performed for the Fire Protection Research Foundation on separation distances for Ammonium Nitrate and sympathetic detonation of Ammonium Nitrate.

e. Exploding Targets Task Group. The exploding targets task group was reformed to address the Committee Input on NFPA 495 (CI-10). The committee decided that at this time the changes were incomplete and required more work by the task group. The members are as follows:

i. Bob Morhard (Chair) ii. David Shatzner

iii. Matt Egloff iv. Ben Barrett v. Frank Fenton

vi. John Capers vii. Steven Sites

viii. Lon Santis ix. Matt Spencer x. Ron Thomas



3

f. NFPA 498 Task Group. The NFPA 498 task group was reformed to address the possible alterations that could be made regarding security and other updates that may be required to the standard. The members are as follows:

i. Ron Thomas (Chair) ii. Ben Barrett

iii. Lon Santis iv. Matt Egloff

7. Next Meeting. The next meeting will be the Second Draft Meeting that is tentatively scheduled for April 4-7, 2017,the location will either by Baltimore or Denver.

8. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. March 30, 2016.


Attachment B: F2017 Revision Cycle



4

AAttachment A NFPA 495/498 Revision Cycle

Fall 2017

Action Date Public Input Closing January 7, 2016 (DONE) Posting of First Draft September 8, 2016

Public Comment Closing November 17, 2016 Second Draft Meeting December 17, 2016 – May 18, 2017

Posting of Second Draft August 3, 2017 Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) August 31, 2017

Issuance of Consent Standard October 12, 2017 NFPA Annual Meeting with CAMS June 4-7, 2018 Issuance of Standard - with CAMS August 14, 2018


NFPA 495/498 Revision Cycle KEY DATES

Fall 2017

NFPA 495/498 F2017 [EXP-AAA]

Important Dates For the Cycle:

Public Comment Closing November 17, 2016 (DONE)

Posting of Second Draft August 3, 2017

Notice of Intent to Make Motion (NITMAM) August 31, 2017

Issuance of Consent Standard November 6, 2017 (published bit later)

NFPA Annual Meeting with CAMs June 4-7, 2018

Issuance of Standard – with CAMs August 14, 2018 (published bit later)


Attachment C: EXP-AAA Committee

Membership


Address List No PhoneExplosives EXP-AAA

Eric Nette03/16/2017

EXP-AAALon D. SantisChairExplosives Risk Managers, LLC11104 Innsbrook WayIjamsville, MD 21754-9058

SE 01/01/1995EXP-AAA

Jean-Luc ArpinPrincipalNatural Resources CanadaExplosives Regulatory Division1431 Merivale RoadOttawa, ON K1A 0G1 CanadaEnforcementAlternate: Serge Dionne

E 1/14/2005

EXP-AAARobert M. BachmanPrincipalWinchester Ammunition33 County Road 166Oxford, MS 38655

M 8/5/2009EXP-AAA

Ben BarrettPrincipalDG AdvisorPO Box 248Dubois, WY 82513Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers InstituteAlternate: Matt Spencer

M 1/1/1996

EXP-AAAClark D. BonnerPrincipalDyno Nobel Inc.2795 E Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 500Salt Lake City, UT 84121-5695

M 10/18/2011EXP-AAA

John E. CapersPrincipalAustin Powder Company62534 US Highway 50McArthur, OH 45651

M 3/2/2010

EXP-AAAMatt EgloffPrincipalMontana Tech, University of MontanaGeneral Engineering Department1300 West Park StreetButte, MT 59701

SE 1/10/2008EXP-AAA

Kenneth K. EltschlagerPrincipalUS Department of the InteriorOffice of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement3 Parkway CetnerPittsburgh, PA 15220

E 10/18/2011

EXP-AAAFrank H. Fenton, IIIPrincipalThe Township of Northampton55 Township RoadRichboro, PA 18954

E 10/1/1993EXP-AAA

J. Winston FordePrincipalInternational Society of Explosives Engineers30325 Bainbridge RoadCleveland, OH 44139International Society of Explosives EngineersAlternate: Brian Wingfield

U 10/29/2012

EXP-AAALawrence J. LyonPrincipalOrbital ATK Corporate Safety4700 Nathan Lane NorthMN07-LW58Plymouth, MN 55442

M 7/26/2007EXP-AAA

Robert C. MorhardPrincipalExploConsult, LLC3670 Bayedge LaneSouthport, NC 28461

SE 9/30/2004

1NFPA Technical Committee on Explosives NFPA 495 and NFPA 498 April 5,2017 Second Draft Agenda Page 11 of 33



EXP-AAAWilliam O'BrienPrincipalUS Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives99 New York Avenue NE#6N-672Washington, DC 20002-3325

E 08/17/2015EXP-AAA

Tod B. OssmannPrincipalWillis Towers Watson225 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 300Melville, NY 11747-4899

I 08/17/2015

EXP-AAAAli RezaPrincipalExponent, Inc.5401 McConnell AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90066-7027Alternate: James Karnesky

SE 7/26/2007EXP-AAA

Douglas RudenkoPrincipalVibra-Tech Engineers, Inc.109 East First StreetHazleton, PA 18201

M 03/05/2012

EXP-AAAGlen SaradukePrincipalSaraduke Technical Services, Inc.9120 West Frances PlaceLakewood, CO 80215-1707

SE 03/03/2014EXP-AAA

David S. ShatzerPrincipalShatzer & Associates Consulting1114 BroadwayAltoona, PA 16601-5311

SE 10/1/1993

EXP-AAASteven SitesPrincipalVirginia State Fire Marshals Office140 Brookside PlaceHarrisonburg, VA 22802International Fire Marshals Association

E 10/23/2013EXP-AAA

Arthur R. StithemPrincipalBattelle/Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryPO Box 999, MSIN: J2-25Richland, WA 99352

U 10/20/2010

EXP-AAARonald ThomasPrincipalInstitute of Makers of Explosives15 West Oak DriveWoodland Hills, UT 84653-2034

M 03/03/2014EXP-AAA

Richard TurcottePrincipalNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Explosives Research Laboratory555 Booth Street, BCC #12Ottawa, ON K1A 0G1 CanadaResearch

RT 10/27/2005

EXP-AAARobert A. Van DuzerPrincipalVan Duzer Consulting Services1339 Broad Run RoadLandenberg, PA 19350

SE 4/1/1993EXP-AAA

Mark WendtVoting AlternateHodgdon Powder Company, Inc.2577 Q AvenueHerington Air ParkHerington, KS 67449

M 10/29/2012

EXP-AAASerge DionneAlternateNatural Resources CanadaExplosives Regulatory Division580 Booth StreetOttawa, ON K1A 0E4 CanadaEnforcementPrincipal: Jean-Luc Arpin

E 04/05/2016EXP-AAA

James KarneskyAlternateExponent, Inc.5401 McConnell AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90066-7027Principal: Ali Reza

SE 08/03/2016




EXP-AAAMatt SpencerAlternateHornady Manufacturing Company3625 West Old Potash HighwayGrand Island, NE 68803Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers InstitutePrincipal: Ben Barrett

M 10/29/2012EXP-AAA

Brian WingfieldAlternateInternational Society of Explosives Engineers11 Meadow Wood EstScott Depot, WV 25560International Society of Explosives EngineersPrincipal: J. Winston Forde

U 11/30/2016

EXP-AAAMark HagemannNonvoting MemberUS Department of LaborOccupational Safety & Health Administration200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room N3609Washington, DC 20210

E 4/15/2004EXP-AAA

Eric NetteStaff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

04/16/2014


Attachment D: NFPA Process – Quick

Reference Guide


New Process (Second Draft Stage) – Quick Reference Guide For additional information on the New Regulations visit: www.nfpa.org/NewRegs

A Technical Committee (TC) can take these actions at the Second Draft (ROC) meeting:

1. Resolve a Public Comment

Accept

Reject, But See Related Second Revision

Reject

Reject But hold 2. Create a Second Revision

NOTE: All actions require a Committee Statement.

Resolve Public Comment (TC needs to act upon all the Public Comments)

Accept

The TC takes the text exactly as submitted by the public comment and creates a second revision.

Sample Motion: “I move to accept PC#_.”

Approval by meeting vote (simple majority) and final approval through ballot.

Reject but See

The TC agrees with the concept of the PC in whole or part but wants to edit the text to create a second revision.

Sample Motions: i. “I move to reject PC#__, but create a second revision using it as a basis.” ii. “I move to make a second revision using PC#__ as a basis.”


Reject

The TC disagrees with the proposed changes in the public comment.

Sample Motion: “I move to reject PC#__.”

Approval by meeting vote (simple majority). Not subject to ballot.

Reject, but Hold.

The TC may hold any comment until the public input stage of the next revision cycle meeting any of the following criteria:

i. New concept that has not had any public review ii. The changed text would require the technical committee to restudy the

change iii. The proposed concept cannot be handled in the second draft timeframe

Sample Motion: “I move to hold PC#__.”

Approval by meeting vote (simple majority). Not subject to ballot. Create a Second Revision (change to the document)

TC must create a Second Revision (SR) for each change they wish to make to the document. The TC can either choose to use a Public Comment for the basis of the change or not.


Using Public Comment for basis: i. See above for ACCEPT or REJECT BUT SEE.

Without using Public Comment for basis i. Sample Motion: “I make a motion to revise section __ as follows___.”



Comparison to Previous Process:

PREVIOUS ACTIONS NEW PROCESS ACTIONS Sample Motion

Accept

1) Committee generates a Second Revision and Substantiation (CS) for change 2) Committee provides response (CS) to each PC.

1) “I move to accept PC#__.”

Any variation of Accept (APA, APR, APP) on a public comment

1) Committee rejects the comment, but creates a Second Revision 2) Committee provides response (CS) to each PC that is associated with the revision

1) “I move to revise section __ using PC#_ as the basis for change.” 2) “I move to reject PC#__, but create a second revision using it as a basis.”

Rejected Public Comment

1) Committee rejects the comment 2) Committee provides response (CS) to PC

“I make a motion to reject PC#_ with the following committee statement__.”

Accepted Committee Comment Committee generates a Second Revision and Substantiation (CS) for change

“I make a motion to revise section __ as follows___.” Committee generates a statement for reason for change.

Notes: 1) All meeting actions require a favorable vote of a simple majority of the members present. 2) All Second Revisions will be contained in the ballot and will require a 2/3 affirmative vote

to confirm the meeting action. 3) Only the Second Revisions will be balloted. PCs will be contained in the report but will not

be balloted.


Term Comparison between Current and Old:

CURRENT TERM OLD TERM

Input Stage ROP Stage

Public Input (PI) Proposal

First Draft Meeting ROP Meeting

Committee Input Committee Proposal that Fail

Ballot

Committee Statement (CS)

Committee Statement

First Revision (FR) Committee Proposal or Accepted

Public Proposal

First Draft Report ROP

First Draft ROP Draft

Comment Stage ROC Stage

Public Comment Public Comment

Second Draft Meeting ROC Meeting

Committee Comment Committee Comment that Fail

Ballot

Committee Action Committee Action

Second Revision Committee Comment or Accepted

Public Comment

Second Draft Report ROC

Second Draft ROC Draft

Note: The highlighted terms are the ones that will be most applicable at the Second Draft Meeting.


Attachment E: NFPA 495/498 – F2017

Public Comments


Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 495-2016 [ Section No. 5.2.8.1 ]

5.2.8.1 Type of Clothing.

Clothing to be worn by persons involved in the manufacturing process shall be of a type approved by management or the AHJ.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

The issue with just allowing management approving use of the type of clothing worn is dealing with the management hazard of cost priority over personnel safety. In addition, the authority having jurisdiction over explosive safety at the site is sometimes not in a managerial position. Adding the option of getting approval from the authority having jurisdiction would provide enhanced safety of personnel and avoid the management hazard of buying non-compliant protective clothing due to costs. Related Item Public Input No. 1-NFPA 495-2015 [Chapter 2]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Chad Gardner

Organization: Day & Zimmermann, Kansas LLC

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Nov 09 09:18:09 EST 2016


10.4.4.2

Such records shall contain, at a minimum, the following data:

(1) Name of the company conducting the blast

(2) Location, date, and time of the blast

(3) Name, signature, and permit number of the blaster-in-charge conducting the blast

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.



(4) Identification, direction, and distance (ft) from the nearest blast hole to the nearest dwelling, public building, school, church, community, or institutional building outside the blast site

(5) Weather conditions, including those which might cause possible adverse blasting effects

(6) Type of material blasted

(7) Sketches of the blast pattern, including number of holes, burden, spacing, decks, and delay pattern

(8) Diameter and depth of holes

(9) Types of explosives used

(10) Total weight of explosives used per hole

(11) Maximum weight of explosives detonated in an 8-millisecond period per delay

(12) Initiation system

(13) Type and length of stemming

(14) Mats or other protection types used

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved 8_Millisecond_Rule_Discussion.pdf Proposed modification substantiation


The continued preservation of the 8ms rule without discretion or distinction of application is a barrier to utilization of advanced initiation technology and some instances elevates risks of misfire and fly-rock. Related Item Public Input No. 6-NFPA 495-2015 [New Section after 10.4]


Submitter Full Name: Kenneth Smith

Organization: [ Maine Drilling and Blasting]

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Sep 02 15:47:08 EDT 2016


The so called 8 millisecond rule was promulgated in response to the understood

inaccuracies of pyrotechnic initiation systems to try to reasonably provide separation of

delayed charges with the hope that at minimum holes would be less likely to sequence

out of order. Research and technology has proven in most cases with such systems eight

ms is not enough (see Lusk research test data graphic). With the advent of precise

electronic initiation systems as little 1ms of separation (for small near field charges) is

adequate to separate wave arrival. The wave cancelling benefits (destructive interference)

derived from signature analysis are dependent on precise (often less than 8ms) separation

of charges. Preserving the 8ms rule for electronic systems handicaps their effective use

and thereby presents a barrier to more wide spread introduction of this technology. More

importantly, when charges are reduced, they are by technical necessity spatially scaled

smaller. The timing interval must also reflect the same scaling in order to prevent an

under-confined detonation or destructive transient communication between closely

spaced charges. Forcing blast design outside recognized industry spatial relationship

standards, not only inhibits effective use of technology but could generate misfires or fly-

rock. At best, the eight millisecond reference has no technical basis that can provide any

substantiated benefit for design application when using precise initiation systems. At

worst, based on experience, insistence on its application to spatially scaled applications

presents a serious safety risk.

8 Millisecond Rule Discussion


Public Comment No. 7-NFPA 495-2016 [ Section No. A.5.3.1 ]

A.5.3.1

The hazard classification, for example, Division 1.1, 1.3, and so forth, of explosive materials when packaged for transportation or storage could be different from the hazard classification for these same materials as the materials are moving within the manufacturing process. The differences in classification can be due to quantity or mass of material present, its physical form, the configuration (or arrangement) of the material, as well as other extrinsic or intrinsic factors. An in-process hazard classification is used to characterize the hazards of a given material as it exists outside of its packaging within the manufacturing process.

The hazard classification of high explosion hazard materials is generally considered to be the most severe. Materials that are known to have a high explosion hazard are treated as those that mass explode. The classification code allows the user to assume that the material presents a high explosion hazard, or to demonstrate that the in-process hazard classification is other than a high explosion hazard, through documentation, experience with a given process, or testing. An example of each method of demonstration is as follows:

(1) A documented method of demonstration can include explosives that are manufactured to a published military standard, or explosives manufactured to another established process that is documented by qualified operating procedures. To be qualified, the procedures should assign an in-process hazard classification that can be demonstrated, or a high explosion hazard classification can be assumed.

(2) An example of experience with a given process can include a process, equipment, and procedures that have been used by multiple manufacturers over a prolonged period of time so that there is an ample database with which to establish the incident history of the manufacturing process as to its hazards.

(3) By testing with an agreed-upon protocol, an in-process hazard classification can be assigned to one or more steps in the process.

The hazard classification of packaged explosive materials might vary as the material is removed from the original shipping container for use in an assembly operation. Similarly, the hazard classification for materials that are in the process of being formulated might vary and the hazard classification of the bulk form of the material can be quite different from that of the same material in its packaged state. The hazard classification of some materials can be said to be “package dependent,” with the hazard classification subject to change depending on the type or construction of the packaging used as well as the quantity contained within the package.

An analogy can be made between packaged materials and unpackaged materials that are being handled in processing operations through the use of mechanical equipment such as mixing, blending, or formulation processes. The quantity of material used and the shape of the containers (or configuration) that includes the physical dimensions can all have a bearing on the hazard classification of the material. The critical mass (critical height, and/or critical diameter) is frequently used as a measure of safety in establishing the parameters of the manufacturing process.




The intrinsic chemical or physical properties alone of a material can determine the hazard classification, or the hazard classification can be influenced by extrinsic factors such as temperature, pressure, arrangement, or the mechanical aspects of the process operations. Various methods can be used to establish the in-process hazard classification for the materials being manufactured or used within the manufacturing process. Some materials might have well-established process parameters where the nature of the process and the nature of the formulations have long been known. Other materials or processes to which the materials are exposed could be new, or the methods or equipment in which they are to be manufactured or handled are either new or outside of the established parameters. In all cases, an in-process hazard classification for the material being manufactured or used is required. When decisions are made regarding the siting, occupancy, or use of a building in which manufacturing occurs, it is critical that each step of the manufacturing process be evaluated so that the appropriate in-process hazard classification is assigned. The appropriate building location can then be established, and the area of the building being utilized can be assigned the proper occupancy classification.

When testing is used to establish the hazard classifications, tests defined by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), United Nations Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN), or Department of Transportation (DOT) are generally used. Regardless of the specific tests being performed, the protocol as well as the acceptance criteria should be agreed upon between the user and the AHJ. Figure A.5.3.1(a) and Figure A.5.3.1(b) provide examples of a test protocol in which the in-process hazard classifications of materials are established by testing. Figure A.5.3.1(a) is used for the in-process classification of substances, and Figure A.5.3.1(b)c is used for the in-process classification for unpackaged articles. These figures and additional information can be found in the Explosives Testing Users Group (ETUG) Standard entitled: In-Process Classification of Explosives Standard: ETUG-GS01-15, 2015.

Figure A.5.3.1(a) In-Process Classification of Substances.


Figure A.5.3.1(b) In-Process Classification for Unpackaged Articles.


Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved Figure_A.5.3.1_a_.pdf Updated Figure A.5.3.1(a) Figure_A.5.3.1_b_.pdf Updated Figure A.5.3.1(b)


The original figures have been updated and adopted in the Explosives Testing Users Group (ETUG) Standard entitled "In-Process Hazards Classification of Explosives Standard: ETUG-GS01-15."

Related Public Comments for This Document


EnergeticSubstancesClassi�icationDecisionTreeforIn-Process(IP)OperationsSeealsoETUG-GS01-15:In-ProcessHazardClassi�icationofExplosives

IPTestSeries1(RequiredFundamentalHandlingandProcessingTests)ImpactSensitivityTestFrictionSensitivityTestESDSensitivityTestThermalSensitivityTest

IPTestSeries2(EquivalenttotheUNManualofTestandCriteriaTestSeries1)UNGapTestKoenenTestTime/PressureInternalIgnitionTest

IPTestSeries3Small-ScaleBurningTest#8CapSensitivityTestShockSensitivityTest

IPTestSeries4ProcessSimulationTestCriticalDiameterTestCriticalHeightTestKoenenTestInternalIgnitionTest

PerformIPTestSeries1



Assumesubstancehasexplosive

properties?

YES

NO

Isitanexplosivesubstance?

NO

Notanexplosivehazard

Assumesubstanceisamassexplosionhazard

(IP1.1)?

YES Massexplosionhazard(IP 1.1)

Isthesubstanceacandidatetobelessthanamass

explosionhazard(IP1.1)?


Mass�irehazard(IP1.3)

Hastheprocessbeendesignedtoconform

toanon-mass-explosioncon-�igurationhazard?

YES

NO

NO

Assumein-processrisksareequivalent

toIPTestSeries3insults?

PerformProcessRiskAssessment

NO

YES

YES

NO

Isthesubstanceinthein-processscenarioa

candidatetobelessthanamassexplosionhazard

(IP1.1)?

Massexplosionhazard(IP1.1)

NO YES


IPTestSeries5DropTestThermalCharacterizationTestsWorst-casePropagationTestsExternalFireTest


Doesanytestresultinapropagatingmass

explosion?

Doesanytestresultinamass�ire

hazard?

Doesanytestresultinafragment

hazard?

Doesthearticlecontain450g(1lb)NEW

orless?

Mass�irehazard(IP1.3)

Massexplosionhazard(IP1.1)

Fragmentationhazard(IP1.2)

Nomassreactionhazard

(Quali�iedIP1.4)

Isthearticleacandidateforexcludionfrom

IPClass1?

PerformUNModelRegulationsSection2.1.3.6tests

and�iretestlikeISO12097-3

Isthearticleexcludedbyde�inition?

NotIPClass1

In-ProcessArticleClassi�icationDecisionTreeforIn-Process(IP)OperationsSeealsoETUG-GS01-15:In-ProcessHazardClassi�icationofExplosives

YES

NO

YES

Isthereactiondetonating?

Doesthearticlecontain110g(0.25lb)NEW

orless?

YES

Nomassreactionhazard(IP1.4)

YES

NO

YES

NO

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

PerformProcessRiskAssessment

IsthearticleaQuali�iedIP1.4candidate

perIBC?

YES

YESIsthearticleQuali�iedIP1.4inthein-process

scenario?

Nomassreactionhazard(IP1.4)

NO

YES

NO

NO

YES


Related Comment Relationship Public Comment No. 6-NFPA 495-2016 [Section No. F.2.7] Same Publication

Related Item First Revision No. 12-NFPA 495-2016 [Chapter F]


Submitter Full Name: Robert Ford

Organization: Safety Management Services

Affilliation: Explosives Testing Users Group

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Thu Nov 17 13:32:29 EST 2016

Public Comment No. 6-NFPA 495-2016 [ Section No. F.2.7 ]

F.2.7 Other References.

Atlas Powder Co. (Dallas, TX). Handbook of Electric Blasting, 1985.

Borg, D. G., R. F. Chiappetta, R. C. Morhard, and V. A. Sterner. Explosives and Rock Blasting. Atlas Powder Co. (Dallas, TX) ISBN 0-9616284-0-5, 1987.

D'Andrea, D. V., and L. R. Fletcher. “Analysis of Recent Mine Blasting Accidents.” Paper in Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, C. J. Konya, ed. (Dallas, TX, Jan. 31 to Feb. 4, 1983). Soc. Explos. Eng., Montville, OH, 1983, pp. 105–122.

Fischer, R. L. Blasting Incidents in Mining. MSHA Program Circular 7026, August 1988.

Speed, Thaddeus, C., “In-Process Hazard Explosives Testing Users Group. In-Process Hazards Classification of Explosives ,” Safety Management Services, Inc., West Jordan, UT, December 2003.Standard: ETUG-GS01-15, 2015. http://www.etusersgroup.org/library/equipment-standards-procedures


Explanation: The original reference has been updated and adopted as a Standard for the Explosives Testing Users Group (ETUG). The ETUG is comprised of International Laboratories (e.g., BAM, TNO, CERL, HSL), US DOE National Laboratories (e.g., SNL, LANL, LLNL), US DoD laboratories (e.g., Picatinny Arsenal, Tyndall AFB, NRL, NAWC, NSWC), US National Laboratories (e.g., DHS, FBI, ATF), and Industry Laboratories (e.g., Orbital ATK, BAE, Esterline, Vista Outdoors). The ETUG Charter is the improvement and standardization of test apparatus, methods, and procedures for accurate In-Process Classification and Characterization of Explosives. Additional information regarding ETUG is available at www.etusersgroup.org. This website includes a database entitled Test Methods Matrix which uses the referenced standard to outline the key test parameters and indicators and illustrate



reaction types with example photos and videos. This database is available to the public at http://www.etusersgroup.org/test-methods-matrix. Related Item First Revision No. 12-NFPA 495-2016 [Chapter F]


Submitter Full Name: Robert Ford

Organization: Safety Management Services

Affilliation: Explosives Testing Users Group

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 498-2016 [ New Section after 4.1.2 ]

TITLE OF NEW CONTENT

Under no circumstances shall any safe haven be selected that is located within 1500 feet of a school or hospital.


The Technical Committee should address the proposed change to add additional separation distance between the Safe Haven and critical infrastructures containing children in a school room setting or hospitals that may contain individuals that would be difficult to move in case of an incident at the lot. An additional consideration for the committee would be add senior living or assisted living facilities for the same reason. Related Item Committee Input No. 1-NFPA 498-2016 [Section No. 4.1.2]


Submitter Full Name: Ronald Thomas

Organization: Institute of Makers of Explosi

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



4.2.1.1

Before any vehicle is admitted to a safe haven, a thorough inspection shall be made of the vehicle. This inspection should be carried out by the driver(s) who are very familiar with the vehicle and its condition.


The current language in NFPA 498 Section 4.2.1.2 requires that a vehicle be inspected before it is allowed into the Safe Haven. This clarification states who shall do the inspection stipulated in the 2013 edition of NFPA 498.




Related Item Committee Input No. 2-NFPA 498-2016 [Section No. 4.2.1.2]


Submitter Full Name: Ronald Thomas

Organization: Institute of Makers of Explosives

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 498-2016 [ Section No. 4.3.3 ]

4.3.3

Law enforcement and security personnel shall be permitted to carry firearms where specifically authorized by the authority having jurisdiction. In addition, when there are exigent circumstances that warrant the response of law enforcement and/or security personnel, authorized firearms may be carried.


Adding this language ensures there is nothing restricting or preventing law enforcement and/or security personnel from performing their duties during an emergency. Related Item Public Input No. 2-NFPA 498-2015 [Chapter B]


Submitter Full Name: Steve Sites

Organization: Virginia Dept of Fire Programs

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:




Technical Committee on Explosives

Documents

Transcript of Technical Committee on Explosives