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
enette@nfpa.org. I look forward to our meeting to continue the revision cycle!
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
B. F2017 – Revision Cycle
C. EXP-AAA Committee Membership
D. NFPA Process – Quick Reference Guide
E. NFPA 495/498 - F2017 Public Comments
Page 2 of 33
Attachment A:
March 29-31, 2016
Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 33
EXP-AAA
First Draft Meeting Minutes - March 29-30, 2016
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.
Page 4 of 33
EXP-AAA
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
Page 5 of 33
EXP-AAA
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.
Page 6 of 33
Attachment B:
F2017 Revision Cycle
Page 7 of 33
EXP-AAA
Attachment 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
Page 8 of 33
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)
Page 9 of 33
Attachment C:
EXP-AAA Committee
Membership
Page 10 of 33
03/16/2017
Address List No Phone Eric Nette
Explosives EXP-AAA
Lon D. Santis SE 01/01/1995 Jean-Luc Arpin E 1/14/2005

Chair EXP-AAA Principal EXP-AAA
Explosives Risk Managers, LLC Natural Resources Canada
11104 Innsbrook Way Explosives Regulatory Division
Ijamsville, MD 21754-9058 1431 Merivale Road
Ottawa, ON K1A 0G1 Canada
Enforcement
Alternate: Serge Dionne
Robert M. Bachman M 8/5/2009 Ben Barrett M 1/1/1996

Principal EXP-AAA Principal EXP-AAA
Winchester Ammunition DG Advisor
33 County Road 166 PO Box 248
Oxford, MS 38655 Dubois, WY 82513
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute
Alternate: Matt Spencer
Clark D. Bonner M 10/18/2011 John E. Capers M 3/2/2010

Dyno Nobel Inc. Austin Powder Company
2795 E Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 500 62534 US Highway 50
Salt Lake City, UT 84121-5695 McArthur, OH 45651
Matt Egloff SE 1/10/2008 Kenneth K. Eltschlager E 10/18/2011

Montana Tech, University of Montana US Department of the Interior
General Engineering Department Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement
1300 West Park Street 3 Parkway Cetner
Butte, MT 59701 Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Frank H. Fenton, III E 10/1/1993 J. Winston Forde U 10/29/2012

The Township of Northampton International Society of Explosives Engineers
55 Township Road 30325 Bainbridge Road
Richboro, PA 18954 Cleveland, OH 44139
International Society of Explosives Engineers
Alternate: Brian Wingfield
Lawrence J. Lyon M 7/26/2007 Robert C. Morhard SE 9/30/2004

Orbital ATK Corporate Safety ExploConsult, LLC
4700 Nathan Lane North 3670 Bayedge Lane
MN07-LW58 Southport, NC 28461
Plymouth, MN 55442
1
Page 11 of 33
03/16/2017
Explosives EXP-AAA
William O'Brien E 08/17/2015 Tod B. Ossmann I 08/17/2015

US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives Willis Towers Watson
99 New York Avenue NE 225 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 300
#6N-672 Melville, NY 11747-4899
Washington, DC 20002-3325
Ali Reza SE 7/26/2007 Douglas Rudenko M 03/05/2012

Exponent, Inc. Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc.
5401 McConnell Avenue 109 East First Street
Los Angeles, CA 90066-7027 Hazleton, PA 18201
Alternate: James Karnesky
Glen Saraduke SE 03/03/2014 David S. Shatzer SE 10/1/1993

Saraduke Technical Services, Inc. Shatzer & Associates Consulting
9120 West Frances Place 1114 Broadway
Lakewood, CO 80215-1707 Altoona, PA 16601-5311
Steven Sites E 10/23/2013 Arthur R. Stithem U 10/20/2010

Virginia State Fire Marshals Office Battelle/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
140 Brookside Place PO Box 999, MSIN: J2-25
Harrisonburg, VA 22802 Richland, WA 99352
International Fire Marshals Association
Ronald Thomas M 03/03/2014 Richard Turcotte RT 10/27/2005

Institute of Makers of Explosives Natural Resources Canada
15 West Oak Drive Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory
Woodland Hills, UT 84653-2034 555 Booth Street, BCC #12
Ottawa, ON K1A 0G1 Canada
Research
Robert A. Van Duzer SE 4/1/1993 Mark Wendt M 10/29/2012

Principal EXP-AAA Voting Alternate EXP-AAA
Van Duzer Consulting Services Hodgdon Powder Company, Inc.
1339 Broad Run Road 2577 Q Avenue
Landenberg, PA 19350 Herington Air Park
Herington, KS 67449
Serge Dionne E 04/05/2016 James Karnesky SE 08/03/2016

Alternate EXP-AAA Alternate EXP-AAA
Natural Resources Canada Exponent, Inc.
Explosives Regulatory Division 5401 McConnell Avenue
580 Booth Street Los Angeles, CA 90066-7027
Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4 Canada Principal: Ali Reza
Enforcement
Principal: Jean-Luc Arpin
2
Page 12 of 33
03/16/2017
Explosives EXP-AAA
Matt Spencer M 10/29/2012 Brian Wingfield U 11/30/2016

Alternate EXP-AAA Alternate EXP-AAA
Hornady Manufacturing Company International Society of Explosives Engineers
3625 West Old Potash Highway 11 Meadow Wood Est
Grand Island, NE 68803 Scott Depot, WV 25560
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute International Society of Explosives Engineers
Principal: Ben Barrett Principal: J. Winston Forde
Mark Hagemann E 4/15/2004 Eric Nette 04/16/2014

Nonvoting Member EXP-AAA Staff Liaison EXP-AAA
US Department of Labor National Fire Protection Association
Occupational Safety & Health Administration 1 Batterymarch Park
200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room N3609 Quincy, MA 02169-7471
Washington, DC 20210
3
Page 13 of 33
Attachment D:
NFPA Process – Quick
Reference Guide
Page 14 of 33
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.”
 Approval by meeting vote (simple majority) and final approval through ballot.
 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.
Page 15 of 33
 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___.”
Approval by meeting vote (simple majority) and final approval through
ballot.
Page 16 of 33
Comparison to Previous Process:
PREVIOUS ACTIONS NEW PROCESS ACTIONS Sample Motion

1) Committee generates a Second
Revision and Substantiation (CS) for
change
Accept 1) “I move to accept PC#__.”
2) Committee provides response (CS) to
each PC.
1) Committee rejects the comment,

1) “I move to revise section __
but creates a Second Revision
using PC#_ as the basis for
change.”
Any variation of Accept (APA, APR, 2) Committee provides response (CS) to
APP) on a public comment each PC that is associated with the
2) “I move to reject PC#__, but
revision
create a second revision using it
as a basis.”
1) Committee rejects the comment
“I make a motion to reject
2) Committee provides response (CS)
Rejected Public Comment PC#_ with the following
to PC
committee statement__.”
“I make a motion to revise

Committee generates a Second Revision section __ as follows___.”
Accepted Committee Comment and Substantiation (CS) for change
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.
Page 17 of 33
Term Comparison between Current and Old:
CURRENT TERM OLD TERM
Input Stage ROP Stage
Public Input (PI) Proposal
First Draft Meeting ROP Meeting
Committee Proposal that Fail

Committee Input
Ballot
Committee Statement
Committee Statement
(CS)
Committee Proposal or Accepted
First Revision (FR)
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 that Fail

Committee Comment
Ballot
Committee Action Committee Action
Committee Comment or Accepted

Second Revision
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.
Page 18 of 33
Attachment E:
NFPA 495/498 – F2017
Public Comments
Page 19 of 33
The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that
the link points to the correct file and location.
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
Public Comment No. 1-NFPA 495-2016 [ Section No.

10.4.4.2 ]
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
Page 20 of 33
(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
Page 21 of 33
8 Millisecond Rule Discussion
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.
Page 22 of 33
Page 23 of 33
Public Comment No. 7-NFPA 495-2016 [ Section No.

A.5.3.1 ]
The link ed image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed,
renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
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.
Page 24 of 33
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.
Page 25 of 33
Figure A.5.3.1(b) In-Process Classification for Unpackaged Articles.
Page 26 of 33
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
Page 27 of 33
Energetic Substances Classi�ication Decision Tree for In-Process (IP) Operations
See also ETUG-GS01-15: In-Process Hazard Classi�ication of Explosives
IP Test Series 1
(Required Fundamental Perform
Assume
NO Perform
Handling and Processing Tests) substance has explosive
IP Test Series 1 IP Test Series 2
Impact Sensitivity Test properties?
Friction Sensitivity Test
ESD Sensitivity Test YES Is it an explosive
Thermal Sensitivity Test
substance?
Assume
IP Test Series 2 substance is a mass YES NO
Mass explosion
explosion hazard
(Equivalent to the UN Manual hazard (IP 1.1)
(IP 1.1)? Not an explosive
of Test and Criteria Test Series 1)
hazard
UN Gap Test NO
Koenen Test
Perform
Time/Pressure
IP Test Series 3
Internal Ignition Test
NO
Has the process

IP Test Series 3 Is the substance a
been designed to conform
YES Perform
Small-Scale Burning Test candidate to be less than a mass
IP Test Series 4 to a non-mass-explosion con-
explosion hazard
#8 Cap Sensitivity Test �iguration hazard?
(IP 1.1)?
Shock Sensitivity Test
NO YES
IP Test Series 4 Assume in- Mass �ire
NO Perform
Process Simulation Test process risks are equivalent hazard (IP 1.3)
Process Risk
Critical Diameter Test to IP Test Series 3 Assessment
Critical Height Test insults?
Koenen Test YES
Internal Ignition Test Is the substance
Mass explosion NO in the in-process scenario a YES
hazard (IP 1.1) candidate to be less than a mass
explosion hazard
(IP 1.1)?
Page 28 of 33
In-Process Article Classi�ication Decision Tree for In-Process (IP) Operations
See also ETUG-GS01-15: In-Process Hazard Classi�ication of Explosives
IP Test Series 5 Perform

Drop Test IP Test Series 5
Thermal Characterization Tests
Worst-case Propagation Tests
External Fire Test
YES Does any test
Mass explosion result in a propagating mass
hazard (IP 1.1) explosion?
NO
YES Does any test

Fragmentation result in a fragment
hazard (IP 1.2) hazard?
NO
YES Does any test

Mass �ire
result in a mass �ire
hazard (IP 1.3)
hazard?
NO
Does the article YES Is the reaction

NO
contain 110 g (0.25lb) NEW detonating?
or less?
YES NO
Is the article Perform Is the article

YES
Quali�ied IP 1.4 in the in-process Process Risk a Quali�ied IP 1.4 candidate
scenario? Assessment per IBC?
YES
NO NO
No mass reaction
hazard (IP 1.4)
No mass reaction YES Does the article

hazard contain 450 g (1lb) NEW
(Quali�ied IP 1.4) or less?
NO
Is the article a No mass reaction

NO candidate for excludion from hazard (IP 1.4)
IP Class 1?
NO
YES
Perform UN Model Regulations YES

Is the article excluded Not
Section 2.1.3.6 tests
by de�inition? IP Class 1
and �ire test like ISO 12097-3
Page 29 of 33
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
Page 30 of 33
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:
Page 31 of 33
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:
Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 498-2016 [ Section No. 4.2.1.1

]
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.
Page 32 of 33
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:
Page 33 of 33

Technical Committee On Explosives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Committee On Explosives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Committee on Explosives

Date: March 21, 2017

To: Technical Committee on Explosives

From: Eric Nette, Staff Liaison/Engineer

Some items to have available during the meeting include:

Optional items that are sometimes useful include:

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

Enter the following detail when prompted:

Participant Code: 691847

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

Technical Committee on Explosives (EXP-AAA)

Lon Santis, Chair, Explosives Risk Managers, LLC, MD

Robert Bachman, Winchester Ammunition, MS

Alternate Members and Guests:

Nancy Pearce, NFPA Staff, MA

III. Meeting Minutes:

Lon D. Santis SE 01/01/1995 Jean-Luc Arpin E 1/14/2005

Robert M. Bachman M 8/5/2009 Ben Barrett M 1/1/1996

Clark D. Bonner M 10/18/2011 John E. Capers M 3/2/2010

Matt Egloff SE 1/10/2008 Kenneth K. Eltschlager E 10/18/2011

Frank H. Fenton, III E 10/1/1993 J. Winston Forde U 10/29/2012

Lawrence J. Lyon M 7/26/2007 Robert C. Morhard SE 9/30/2004

William O'Brien E 08/17/2015 Tod B. Ossmann I 08/17/2015

Ali Reza SE 7/26/2007 Douglas Rudenko M 03/05/2012

Glen Saraduke SE 03/03/2014 David S. Shatzer SE 10/1/1993

Steven Sites E 10/23/2013 Arthur R. Stithem U 10/20/2010

Ronald Thomas M 03/03/2014 Richard Turcotte RT 10/27/2005

Robert A. Van Duzer SE 4/1/1993 Mark Wendt M 10/29/2012

Serge Dionne E 04/05/2016 James Karnesky SE 08/03/2016

Matt Spencer M 10/29/2012 Brian Wingfield U 11/30/2016

Mark Hagemann E 4/15/2004 Eric Nette 04/16/2014

NOTE: All actions require a Committee Statement.

Create a Second Revision (change to the document)

PREVIOUS ACTIONS NEW PROCESS ACTIONS Sample Motion

1) Committee rejects the comment,

“I make a motion to revise

Input Stage ROP Stage

Public Input (PI) Proposal

First Draft Meeting ROP Meeting

Committee Proposal that Fail

First Draft Report ROP

First Draft ROP Draft

Comment Stage ROC Stage

Public Comment Public Comment

Second Draft Meeting ROC Meeting

Committee Comment that Fail

Committee Action Committee Action

Committee Comment or Accepted

Second Draft Report ROC

Second Draft ROC Draft

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

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Chad Gardner

Public Comment No. 1-NFPA 495-2016 [ Section No.

Additional Proposed Changes

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Kenneth Smith

Public Comment No. 7-NFPA 495-2016 [ Section No.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

Related Public Comments for This Document