On July 29, 2002, OSHA received a petition (the Petition) from the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) to revise the standard.
So if SAAMI is behind this, how can anyone say that this is an attempt to put ammunition manufacturers out of business?
So far, what I read is that this is mostly administrative work to keep definitions consistent with other federal agencies, update regs to take into account new improved technologies, and to actually remove some regulation from the books.
But I'm still reading.
Paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure that when a fire is in imminent danger of contact with explosives, employees do not fight the fire. In addition, paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(B) and (C) would require that all employees be moved to a safe area and the fire be guarded against intruders. These are new requirements based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1) and are consistent with the language in paragraph 9.1.6 of the 2001 edition of NFPA 495 (Ex. 2-5). OSHA considers these to be widely accepted practices within the industry when dealing with fires near explosive materials. If the fire is past the point where it can be prevented from reaching explosive materials, the requirements in proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii) would help to ensure that employees are safely away from the explosives in the event that the fire causes them to detonate.
The hazards of flame, matches, and spark producing devices are dealt with in proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) by requiring the employer to ensure that no open flames, matches, or spark producing devices are located within 50 feet of explosives or facilities containing explosives. As mentioned earlier, ``facilities containing explosives'' refers to any building on a site where explosives are manufactured, handled or stored. This requirement is a consolidation of four requirements in the existing standard that have been combined into one general requirement and clarified in the proposed rule. Existing paragraphs (c)(5)(vii), (e)(1)(i), (g)(2)(vi)(d), and (g)(5)(iii) deal with open flames, matches, or spark producing devices around magazines, near explosives, near buildings or facilities used to mix blasting agents, and near blasting agent storage warehouses. The term ``facilities containing explosives'' used in proposed paragraph (c)(1)(vii) covers all these situations. The 50-foot prohibition is consistent throughout this proposed rule and, in general, is considered to be an acceptable safe distance.
Issue #4: OSHA seeks specific comments on the impact proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) would have on the storage and retail sale of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants. Do open flames, matches, or spark producing devices create a hazard when located within 50 feet of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, or smokeless propellants, or facilities containing these products? Can employers involved in the storage or retail sale of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, or smokeless propellants prevent all open flames, matches, or spark producing devices from coming within 50 feet of these products or facilities containing these products? If not, why not? Should proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) use a protective distance other than 50 feet and, if so, what distance should it be and why? Should OSHA exclude small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants from the requirements of proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)?
The comments page is linked at the fourth item in the header on the regulation page. There is no direct link.
Talking points: (please paraphrase)
Yes OSHA should exclude these items from the regulations.
Small arms ammunition is no more dangerous than paint, hair spray, or aerosol cleaners. In order to ignite cartridges, you have to heat the primer to several hundred degrees. Deliberate exposure to the flame of a lighter for around ten seconds will do this but it has to be deliberate, and the flame has to be steady.
A fire burning a case of ammunition could ignite the primers, but the individual packages themselves do not have enough fuel to cause ignition. A larger fire in a store would fire the ammunition, but the store likely contains many other flammable articles, such as clothing and paper products, which are just as serious a concern to firefighters. The presence of these items precludes the possibility that prohibiting ignition sources within 50 feet of small arms ammuntion and its components will increase safety. A fire could be ignited in any other part of the store or warehouse and spread to the ammunition area.
Primers are packeaged for retail in trays that separate each primer in order to prevent the accumulation of explosive dust. Primers are not to be repackaged and the trays are designed to blow apart if a primer detonates, thus removing the other primers from the source without exposing them to enough force to detonate them. If a person held a lighter to a brick (1,000) of primers, some of them would fire, spraying the rest of them away from the ignition source and mangling the hand of the person who did it. The shock wave will also extinguish any flame from a lighter or matches. Even a person stupid enough to play with lighters and primers is not so stupid as to repackage primers, especially in a retail environment.
A person who would place primers in a container that defeats the inherent safety features of the manufacturers' packaging has neither common sense nor instinct for self preservation, so rules about storage will not be heeded. Smokeless powder for reloading is already required to be stored in approved, fireproof containers above quantities specified by BATFE, NFPA, state regulations, and municipal fire codes.
Many gun stores have a retail sales floor that is much less than fifty feet deep. Therefore, in order to implement the regulation, these stores would have to secure the front doors and only allow the entrance of customers after they were searched by a guard posted at the door during all operating hours. The regulation would be impossible to implement due to cost. It would also discourage customers from patronizing small establishments, potentially destroying their businesses.