Skip to main content

Combustible Dust for Handling Equipment: NFPA 660 DHA and Class II/III

A dust hazards analysis (DHA) is the step that turns "this plant handles combustible dust" into specific requirements for each conveyor, elevator, collector, bin and control panel. UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for aerospace and heavy industry from its Spokane Valley, WA facility, integrating Allen-Bradley PLC and motion control with in-house CNC machining, heat treating, and stress relief. This article covers the method: the DHA's structure, the ASTM dust tests, OSHA's layer-depth criterion, Class II and Class III classification, and the federal status of NFPA 660-2025. The OSHA emphasis program's wood-industry targets and inspection checks, and the Class II division definitions, are covered in combustible wood dust and OSHA 1910.265.

What is a dust hazards analysis, and how does it relate to process hazard analysis?​

A 2022 peer-reviewed study of wood pellet and MDF plants quotes NFPA 652 (2019), now consolidated into NFPA 660, as defining a DHA as a "systematic review to identify and evaluate the potential fire, flash fire, or explosion hazards associated with the presence of one or more combustible particulate solids in a process or facility." The paper explains the relationship in its own words: "A DHA is an application of process hazard analysis that focuses only on combustible dust-related fire and explosion hazards." It lists HAZOP, What-If/Checklist, FMEA and bow tie analysis as methods for conducting a process hazard analysis, and it applies bow tie analysis, a barrier-based tool that shows how various factors can cause loss of control of a hazard and lead to undesirable consequences, with the barriers that can prevent or mitigate the event.

The paper also gives the purpose: to evaluate existing controls and develop recommendations for additional protections as appropriate, with comprehensive consideration of the combustible dust within the work area, the equipment, the process operations and the buildings that contain them. OSHA's 2005 bulletin adds the timing: a qualified team of managers should conduct the facility analysis, or have qualified outside persons do it, "prior to the introduction of a hazard." Under NFPA 660-2025, Chapter 7 sets the required content of a DHA and the interval at which a DHA for an existing process is reviewed and updated, and the wood chapter carries its counterpart in §24.7. The plant-level article dryer, conveyor, and storage fire safety under NFPA 660 applies the DHA to a biomass line (Rayner Brown et al. 2022, §1.1; OSHA SHIB 07-31-2005, p. 7; NFPA 660-2025, Ch. 7 and §24.7).

What does the analysis have to inventory in a handling system?​

OSHA's 2005 bulletin lists six things a facility should identify to assess its potential for dust explosions:

  • materials that can be combustible when finely divided;
  • processes that use, consume or produce combustible dusts;
  • open areas where combustible dusts may build up;
  • hidden areas where combustible dusts may accumulate;
  • means by which dust may be dispersed in the air; and
  • potential ignition sources.

Its guidance on where to look names equipment. In equipment such as dust collectors, a combustible mixture could be present whenever the equipment is operating, and a thorough analysis "will consider all possible scenarios in which dust can be disbursed [sic], both in the normal process and potential failure modes." It warns that simple rules of thumb about accumulation, such as writing in the dust or visibility in a dust cloud, "can be subjective and misleading," because the accumulation needed for an explosive concentration can vary greatly with particle size, dispersion method, ventilation, air currents, barriers and room volume.

The bow tie study's pellet-plant workshops covered the hammer mill, the dryer (belt or drum, direct or indirect heated), the conveyance system, silo storage and the pelletizer, over five to seven sessions of five hours each, with operators, maintenance personnel, electricians, environment, health and safety specialists, supervisors and managers taking part. As engineering reasoning, every conveyor transfer, enclosure and duct in a handling line is an entry under the "processes" and "hidden areas" items of that list (OSHA SHIB 07-31-2005, pp. 4–5; Rayner Brown et al. 2022, §4.1).

How is a dust shown to be combustible or explosible?​

Each document's definition has to be read in its own edition:

  • OSHA's hazard communication guidance (2009) defines combustible dust as "a solid material composed of distinct particles or pieces, regardless of size, shape, or chemical composition, which presents a fire or deflagration hazard when suspended in air or some other oxidizing medium over a range of concentrations."
  • OSHA's 2005 bulletin quotes the NFPA 654 definition then in force, finely divided solid material "420 microns or smaller in diameter (material passing a U.S. No. 40 Standard Sieve)" that presents a fire or explosion hazard when dispersed and ignited in air, and adds that dusts can be combustible even if the particles are larger, "especially if the material is fibrous."
  • The 2022 bow tie study quotes NFPA 652 (2019), NFPA 68 (2018) and NFPA 69 (2019) as defining combustible dust as "a finely divided combustible particulate solid that presents a flash fire hazard or explosion hazard when suspended in air or the process-specific oxidizing medium over a range of concentrations."

The current definitions of combustible dust, DHA and deflagration are in NFPA 660-2025, and its Chapter 5, Hazard Identification, places on the owner or operator the duty to determine whether a material is combustible or explosible, by reference to test methods that include ASTM E1226 and E1515.

The ASTM test that screens a dust for explosibility is E1226-19(2025). Its purpose is to characterize explosibility "first by determining if a dust is 'explosible,'" meaning a dispersed cloud can propagate a deflagration that could cause a flash fire or explosion, and, if it is, to determine the degree of explosibility through the maximum explosion pressure Pmax, the maximum rate of pressure rise (dP/dt)max, and the explosibility index KSt. ASTM states that its results are intended to be used as elements of a DHA that takes other pertinent risk factors into account (OSHA 3371-08, p. 6; OSHA SHIB 07-31-2005, p. 4; Rayner Brown et al. 2022, §2.2; NFPA 660-2025, Ch. 5; ASTM E1226-19, §1.1 and §1.3).

What do Kst, Pmax, MEC, MIE, and autoignition temperatures measure?​

Each ASTM method answers one question:

  • KSt and Pmax (ASTM E1226-19(2025)). OSHA describes Kst, the dust deflagration index, as measuring relative explosion severity, with larger values more severe, and as "the best 'single number' estimate of the anticipated behavior of a dust deflagration." NIOSH's Cashdollar explains that KSt is the size-normalized maximum rate of pressure rise from the "cubic law" and, being size-normalized, "is used in the practical design of venting systems." ASTM says E1226 data may be used to size deflagration vents with the nomographs and equations in NFPA 68, ISO 6184/1 or VDI 3673.
  • Minimum explosible concentration (ASTM E1515-14(2022)). The minimum concentration of a dust-air mixture that will propagate a deflagration in a near-spherical closed vessel of 20 L or more, also called the lower explosibility limit or lean flammability limit.
  • Minimum ignition energy (ASTM E2019-03(2025)). Determined with a high-voltage spark, MIE is "primarily used to assess the likelihood of ignition during processing and handling," and that likelihood "is used to evaluate the need for precautions such as explosion prevention systems."
  • Minimum autoignition temperature (ASTM E1491-06(2025)). The minimum temperature at which a dust cloud autoignites in air heated in a furnace at local atmospheric pressure.
  • Hot-surface ignition of layers (ASTM E2021-15(2023)). The minimum temperature at which a dust layer on a hot plate will self-heat.

E1226, for example, warns that no inference should be drawn from its results about other forms or conditions, such as the ignition temperature or spark ignition energy of dust clouds, dust layers on hot surfaces, or bulk dust in heated environments. OSHA's guidance gives a Kst class table, with its footnote that "The actual class is sample specific": St 0 is 0, no explosion; St 1 is greater than 0 and up to 200 bar·m/s, a weak explosion; St 2 is greater than 200 and up to 300 bar·m/s, a strong explosion, with cellulose and wood flour among its typical materials; St 3 is above 300 bar·m/s, a very strong explosion. The table credits its classes to OSHA's combustible dust emphasis program directive and its typical materials to NFPA 68. It adds that any combustible dust with a Kst greater than zero can be subject to dust deflagration (OSHA 3371-08, pp. 8–9; Cashdollar 2000, §4.2; ASTM E1226-19, §1.2 and §5.2; ASTM E1515-14, §1.1; ASTM E2019-03, §1.1 and §1.2; ASTM E1491-06, §1.1; ASTM E2021-15, §1.1).

Why are dust test results not fixed material properties, and how should samples be taken?​

E1226 values "are specific to the sample tested and the method used and are not to be considered intrinsic material constants," and E1515 calls the MEC "a relative rather than absolute measurement" that may vary with dispersion uniformity, ignitor energy and propagation criteria, with values specific to the sample "(particularly the particle size distribution)." The test apparatus matters:

  • Overdriving. For dusts with low KSt values, discrepancies have been observed between 20-L and 1-m³ chambers, and a strong ignitor may overdrive a 20-L chamber. E1226 cites a reference concluding that dusts below 45 bar·m/s in a 20-L chamber with a 10,000-J ignitor may not be explosible in a 1-m³ chamber with the same ignitor.
  • Underdriving. Some metal dusts can be underdriven in the 20-L chamber and show significantly lower KSt values than in a 1-m³ chamber.
  • Ignitor choice. E1515 recommends a 2500 or 5000 J pyrotechnic ignitor for MEC in 20-L chambers, and measuring at both energies gives information on possible overdriving.
  • Turbulence. Cashdollar reports that the NIOSH laboratory's 20-L rate-of-pressure-rise data for one coal were obtained at lower turbulence than E1226 recommends, were not recommended for vent sizing, and would be roughly three times higher for that coal at the E1226 turbulence level.

OSHA's 2005 bulletin says particle size, shape and moisture "can change while the material is passing through process equipment," so "published tables of dust explosibility data may be of limited practical value." Cashdollar concludes that "the finer sized dusts are the more hazardous," that "it is critical that representative samples of dusts be collected," and that, because fines can accumulate at some location in a processing system, the 1999 editions of E1226 and E1515 recommended that the test sample be less than 200 mesh. As engineering reasoning, a sample for a handling line is taken from where fines collect, such as collector hoppers, cyclone discharges and the tops of enclosures, and not only from the product stream (ASTM E1226-19, §5.3 and §5.4; ASTM E1515-14, §5.3, §5.5 and §5.7; Cashdollar 2000, §4.2 and §5; OSHA SHIB 07-31-2005, p. 4).

How does OSHA judge whether settled dust is an explosion hazard?​

OSHA's April 2015 enforcement memorandum addresses accumulation depth. It explains that the 1/32-inch accumulation level in the emphasis program is based on assumptions that include a uniform dust layer and a bulk density of 75 lb/ft³, and that NFPA 654 (2013) allows the accumulation to exceed the 1/32-inch layer depth criterion, by an equation, for materials with bulk density below 75 lb/ft³. Quoting §6.1.3.2 of NFPA 654 (2013), it says a dust explosion hazard and a dust flash fire hazard are deemed to exist in any building or room where any of these conditions exists:

  • the total area of nonseparated accumulations exceeding the layer depth criterion is greater than five percent of the footprint area;
  • the area of any single nonseparated accumulation exceeding the criterion is greater than 1000 ft²;
  • the total volume of nonseparated accumulations is greater than the layer depth criterion multiplied by five percent of the footprint area; or
  • the total volume of any single nonseparated accumulation is greater than the layer depth criterion multiplied by 1000 ft².

The memorandum says compliance officers should take the dust's bulk density into consideration before determining a violation of 1910.22(a)(1), 1910.22(a)(2) or 1910.176(c), and it notes that very low bulk density materials, such as tissue paper dust, may not create a deflagration hazard even at 1/4 inch over five percent of the floor area or 1000 ft², whichever is less. It does not discuss the NFPA 654 (2013) mass methods or the risk evaluation method. The NFPA 654 (2013) layer-depth criteria now sit in NFPA 660-2025, whose housekeeping provisions carry the layer depth criterion forward. As engineering reasoning, dust on the horizontal ledges, beam flanges and enclosure tops of handling equipment is among the accumulations such an assessment measures (OSHA memorandum of April 21, 2015, paragraphs 1–4 and footnote 1; NFPA 660-2025, housekeeping provisions).

How are Class II and Class III locations defined and documented?​

The federal definitions are in 29 CFR 1910.399. Class II locations are hazardous because of combustible dust, and their Division 1 and Division 2 definitions, with every condition, are set out in the wood-dust article linked above. Class III locations are "hazardous because of the presence of easily ignitable fibers or flyings, but in which such fibers or flyings are not likely to be in suspension in the air in quantities sufficient to produce ignitable mixtures." Class III, Division 1 is a location where easily ignitable fibers or materials producing combustible flyings are handled, manufactured or used; Class III, Division 2 is a location where easily ignitable fibers are stored or handled, other than in the process of manufacture.

In OSHA's 2005 bulletin, the overall dust hazard designation for electrical requirements is Class II; Divisions "represent the probability of dust being present at any given time"; and each dust is assigned a group, E, F or G, for metal, carbonaceous and other dusts, with Group E dusts electrically conductive. It adds that "NFPA 70 does not define combustible dusts" and points to NFPA 499 for area-classification guidance. NFPA 499-2027 is a recommended practice, and its publisher scope is criteria to determine ignitability hazards "in chemical process areas" where combustible dusts are produced, processed or handled, to assist in selecting electrical systems and equipment for Class II locations. Its classification criteria set the Division 1 and Division 2 conditions, the Group E, F and G definitions, and the extent of the classified area around equipment.

The documentation rule of 1910.307(b), the woodworking note to Class III, Division 1, and NFPA 660's issue facts are covered in combustible wood dust and OSHA 1910.265. Under 1910.307(a)(1), each room, section or area is considered individually in determining its classification (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.399-2014, Class III locations; OSHA SHIB 07-31-2005, p. 5; NFPA 499-2027; OSHA 29 CFR 1910.307-2007, paragraph a.1).

What electrical equipment does a classified dust location need?​

Section 1910.307(c) gives three options: equipment, wiring methods and installations in hazardous (classified) locations "shall be intrinsically safe, approved for the hazardous (classified) location, or safe for the hazardous (classified) location." For the approved route, two conditions follow:

  • The specific dust. Equipment shall be approved "not only for the class of location, but also for the ignitable or combustible properties of the specific gas, vapor, dust, or fiber that will be present." A note says NFPA 70 lists or defines hazardous gases, vapors and dusts by groups characterized by those properties.
  • The marking. Equipment shall be marked to show the class, group and operating temperature or temperature range, based on operation in a 40 °C ambient, for which it is approved, and the temperature marking may not exceed the ignition temperature of the specific gas or vapor. Paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A) to (E) modify the marking requirement for specific equipment; for example, fixed dust-tight equipment other than lighting fixtures that is acceptable for Class II, Division 2 and Class III locations need not be marked with the class, group, division or operating temperature.

OSHA's 2005 bulletin names the equipment types: special Class II wiring methods and equipment, "such as 'dust ignition-proof' and 'dust-tight'," must be used as required by 1910.307, and "It is important not to confuse Class II equipment with Class I explosion-proof equipment," because Class II addresses dust and Class I addresses gas, vapor and liquid hazards. The bulletin, written in 2005, points to NFPA 70 Article 500. The publisher describes a comprehensive reorganization of NFPA 70 that continued in the 2026 edition, with the goal of completing it in the 2029 edition. NFPA 70-2026 carries the Class II and Class III installation requirements and the definitions of dust-ignitionproof and dust-tight equipment in its hazardous-location articles, and their 2026 article numbers are read from that edition rather than carried over from older documents (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.307-2007, paragraph c; OSHA SHIB 07-31-2005, p. 6; NFPA. NFPA 70-2026).

Is NFPA 660 an OSHA requirement?​

Not by incorporation. Under 29 CFR 1910.6(a)(1), material is incorporated into Part 1910 with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register, and to enforce any edition other than the one specified, OSHA must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. Under (a)(1)(i), only the mandatory provisions of an incorporated standard, those containing "shall" or other mandatory language, are adopted as standards. The NFPA list in 1910.6 includes these dust-explosion documents, each incorporated for one paragraph:

  • NFPA 68-1954, the Guide for Explosion Venting, incorporated for 1910.94(a)(2)(iii), part of the ventilation standard's abrasive blasting rules.
  • NFPA 62-1967 on pulverized sugar and cocoa and NFPA 656-1959 on spice grinding plants, both incorporated for 1910.263(k)(2)(i).

NFPA 660, NFPA 68-2023, NFPA 69-2024, NFPA 499 and NFPA 70 do not appear in that list. NFPA has moved NFPA 660 from the Fall 2028 to the Fall 2027 revision cycle. Federal guidance documents are also not standards: OSHA's 2005 bulletin says it "is not a standard or regulation, and it creates no new legal obligations." State Plans are OSHA-approved workplace safety and health programs operated by individual states or U.S. territories, monitored by OSHA, and they "must be at least as effective as OSHA in protecting workers and in preventing work-related injuries, illnesses and deaths" (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.6, paragraphs a.1 and x; NFPA 660-2025; OSHA SHIB 07-31-2005, p. 1; OSHA State Plans 2026).

What did the Imperial Sugar investigation show about enclosed conveyors?​

The CSB's 2009 report on the February 7, 2008 sugar dust explosion at Port Wentworth, Georgia, which killed 14 workers, traced the primary explosion to handling equipment. Its incident causes include:

  • conveying equipment "not designed or maintained to minimize the release of sugar and sugar dust into the work area";
  • airborne sugar dust above the minimum explosible concentration "inside the newly enclosed steel belt assembly";
  • an overheated bearing in the steel belt conveyor that "most likely ignited a primary dust explosion"; and
  • secondary explosions and fires, the most likely cause of the 14 fatalities.

Two findings concern the enclosure itself. The enclosure created a confined, unventilated space where dust could accumulate above the MEC, its volume being ten times smaller than the silo tunnel's, and it was not equipped with explosion vents to vent a dust explosion outside the building. The CSB adds that designing a deflagration vent system for that conveyor was impractical, noting that it was on the ground floor in the center of the building, far from any exterior wall or roof. On ignition, the CSB reports that operators said bearings "got very hot," and that the minimum ignition temperature of a dust cloud decreases as the dust's residence time in the test furnace increases. It ranks friction sparks, although not ruled out, as the least likely source. Testing it cites shows sparks from carbon-steel sliding contact are unlikely to ignite combustible dust unless the contact speed exceeds 30.1 ft/s (9.2 m/s), and the belt speed was estimated at less than 5 ft/s. These findings concern sugar dust, not wood. As engineering reasoning, enclosing a dusty conveyor changes its DHA entry: it can remove a housekeeping problem and create a confined, explosible volume (U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 2009, §3.3.3 and n. 21 and 23, §3.4.2, Key Findings 5–6, and Incident Causes 1–6).

How do DHA findings become barriers on handling equipment?​

The bow tie study says barriers typically comprise three types: passive engineered barriers, such as explosion vents, which do not require event detection and actuation of moving parts other than those caused by the upset condition; active engineered barriers, such as spark detectors and deluge systems, which require detection and actuation; and administrative barriers, such as safe work procedures. It says the approach should follow the hierarchy of controls, with inherently safer design considered first, followed by passive engineered controls, then active engineered controls, and administrative controls last, and it names four inherently safer design principles: minimization, substitution, moderation and simplification.

Its life-cycle example shows the hierarchy changing a layout. After an incident at one of the facilities studied, analysis found all major fiber handling equipment, for example fans, cyclones, ducts and fiber storage bins, inside the mill and extensively interconnected. Fans, ducting and cyclones were relocated outdoors; explosion venting alone could not be used because personnel could not be kept away from the venting zone; and active explosion suppression was also installed. OSHA's 2005 bulletin, summarizing the NFPA 654 guidance then in force, lists suggested protection methods to minimize the danger and damage from an explosion:

  • separation (isolate with distance) and segregation (isolate with a barrier);
  • deflagration venting of a building, room or area, and pressure relief venting for equipment;
  • spark and ember detection and extinguishing systems;
  • explosion protection systems under NFPA 69; and
  • sprinkler systems and other specialized suppression systems (Rayner Brown et al. 2022, §1.1, §1.2, §2.3 and §5.2; OSHA SHIB 07-31-2005, p. 6).

What sensing, interlocks, and controls come out of a DHA for handling equipment?​

Several barriers in a DHA are control functions, and the documents describe the logic:

  • Spark detection and feed shutdown. OSHA's firefighting guidance says spark detection and extinguishing systems are designed to extinguish sparks or embers as soon as they are detected and can be interlocked with abort gates and alarms, and that a fire detection system "should also include an interlocking device that will automatically shut down any devices that feed materials into the pneumatic conveyance system as soon as fire is detected."
  • Prevention or mitigation. The bow tie study notes that the same spark detection and deluge system is a prevention barrier when fire or explosion is the top event and a mitigation barrier when ignition is the top event, and that the top event has some influence on whether a barrier is preventing the top event or mitigating consequences.
  • Ignition sources the sensors watch. OSHA's 2005 bulletin, summarizing NFPA 654's recommendations, lists ignition controls that include controlling mechanical sparks and friction, separator devices to remove foreign materials, and separating heated surfaces and heating systems from dusts. Imperial Sugar's most likely ignition source was an overheated conveyor bearing. As engineering reasoning, bearing temperature, motor current and zero-speed or plug detection on conveyors and elevators are the measurements that watch those sources.
  • Panels and field devices. Control panels, sensors and motors in a classified area fall under the 1910.307(c) options and the class, group and temperature marking described above.

UTEC Industrial, a Rockwell Automation Recognized System Integrator, builds UL 508A control panels and integrates Allen-Bradley ControlLogix and CompactLogix PLC control into the handling equipment it builds. As engineering reasoning, each interlock the DHA relies on becomes a function with a defined trip input, a defined shutdown sequence and a test interval in the commissioning plan (OSHA 3644-04, App. D, p. 22; Rayner Brown et al. 2022, §5.3; OSHA SHIB 07-31-2005, p. 6; U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 2009, Incident Causes; OSHA 29 CFR 1910.307-2007, paragraph c).

Where does the DHA sit in the design-to-monitoring chain?​

A DHA reaches every link of the build chain, design → engineering → parts machining → fabrication → assembly → weld fatigue → stress relief → drives → controls → tuning → monitoring. OSHA's bulletin places the analysis "prior to the introduction of a hazard," and the bow tie study notes that including inherently safer design in capital project planning allows it to be used during design, and that inherently safer design can be considered during management of change. Following the chain for a handling line:

  • Design and engineering. In engineering terms, the DHA sets which enclosures are vented, suppressed or isolated, where electrical equipment is classified, and which interlocks are relied on.
  • Machining, fabrication and assembly. In engineering terms, leak-tight enclosures, access for inspecting hidden areas, vent openings and isolation-device flanges are built into the equipment; OSHA's 2005 bulletin lists minimizing the escape of dust from process equipment and providing access to all hidden areas among the NFPA 654 dust-control recommendations it summarizes.
  • Weld fatigue and stress relief. As engineering reasoning, an enclosure that has to hold or relieve deflagration pressure depends on how its welds were made and how residual stress was handled.
  • Drives, controls, tuning and monitoring. As engineering reasoning, bearings and drives are among the friction and hot-surface sources an ignition-control program covers, and interlocks, sensors and their testing keep the DHA's assumptions true in operation.

As engineering reasoning, the DHA is a living document: a new material, a new enclosure or a changed conveyor speed is a change to review against it (OSHA SHIB 07-31-2005, pp. 5 and 7; Rayner Brown et al. 2022, §1.2 and §5.2).

Related Articles

References​

  • Rayner Brown K, Whelan C, Murray G, Laturnus B, Yazdanpanah F, Cloney C, Amyotte P (2022). "Application of Process Hazard Analysis and Inherently Safer Design in Wood Pellet Production." ACS Omega, 7(51), 47720-47733. DOI 10.1021/acsomega.2c04942
  • OSHA SHIB 07-31-2005: Combustible Dust in Industry: Preventing and Mitigating the Effects of Fire and Explosions. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2005.
  • OSHA 3371-08: Hazard Communication Guidance for Combustible Dusts. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2009.
  • OSHA 3644-04: Firefighting Precautions at Facilities with Combustible Dust. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2013.
  • OSHA. Evaluating Hazardous Levels of Accumulation Depth for Combustible Dusts (memorandum, April 21, 2015). Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2015.
  • Cashdollar KL (2000). "Overview of dust explosibility characteristics." Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 13(3-5), 183-199. DOI 10.1016/S0950-4230(99)00039-X
  • ASTM E1226-19(2025): Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. ASTM International, 2025.
  • ASTM E1515-14(2022): Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts. ASTM International, 2022.
  • ASTM E2019-03(2025): Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air. ASTM International, 2025.
  • ASTM E1491-06(2025): Standard Test Method for Minimum Autoignition Temperature of Dust Clouds. ASTM International, 2025.
  • ASTM E2021-15(2023): Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Ignition Temperature of Dust Layers. ASTM International, 2023.
  • NFPA 660-2025: Standard for Combustible Dusts and Particulate Solids. National Fire Protection Association, 2025.
  • NFPA 499-2027: Recommended Practice for the Classification of Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous (Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas. National Fire Protection Association, 2027.
  • NFPA. NFPA 70-2026: National Electrical Code (NEC). National Fire Protection Association, 2026.
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.399-2014: Definitions Applicable to This Subpart. U.S. Department of Labor, 2014.
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.307-2007: Hazardous (Classified) Locations. U.S. Department of Labor, 2007.
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.6: Incorporation by Reference. U.S. Department of Labor, as amended through 2026.
  • OSHA. State Plans. U.S. Department of Labor, 2026 (undated web documentation, accessed September 2026).
  • U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Sugar Dust Explosion and Fire, Imperial Sugar Company, Investigation Report No. 2008-05-I-GA. CSB, 2009.

Ready to Discuss a Material Handling System?​

UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for heavy industry, from the stress-relieved structure and drives to the Allen-Bradley PLC controls, tuning, and monitoring that run them, at its Spokane Valley, WA facility. Send UTEC the application, loads, and duty cycle to start a system review.

Request a Quote →

Questions? Call (509) 922-1832 or email sales@utec.co

Last updated on