technical committee on pyrotechnics agenda second draft ... · pyrotechnic articles, 20132017...

Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Agenda

Second Draft Meeting for 1122, 1123, 1127 September 7-8, 2016 Drury Inn and Suites

San Antonio, TX

8 AM -5 PM (or as determined by the Chair)

Note- Breakfast served every morning at 7:30AM. Lunch will be provided on Day One.

1. Welcome. Glenn Dean, Chair.

2. Introductions and Update of Committee Roster. (Attached).

3. Approval of First Draft Meeting Minutes for NFPA 1122, 1123, 1127 August 25-27, 2015 (Attached).

4. Staff Updates.

5. Second Draft Presentation and Review of Annual 2017 Revision Cycle Dates.

6. Review of Public Comment NFPA 1123. (Attached).

7. Review of Ballot Comments (Attached).

8. Review of First Draft Changes.

9. Other/New Business

10. Review of PYRO revision cycles (1124 and1125-Annual 2021).

11. Adjournment

MINUTES NFPA Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics

August 25-27, 2015

1122, 1123, 1127 First Draft & 1124, 1125 Second Draft Meeting

Double Tree by Hilton – Denver, CO

1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 8:00AM (MT) on Tuesday August

25th, 2015 by Committee Chair, Glenn Dean. The Chair welcomed the committee and

asked everyone to introduce themselves and identify their affiliations.

2. Attendance and Introductions: Attendance was taken and those present at the meeting

introduced themselves and stated who they represent on the committee. Those who were

present at the meeting are listed below:

Glenn Dean, International Fire Marshals Association

Arthur Barber, National Association of Rocketry

Phil Grucci, Fireworks by Grucci, INC.

Garry Hanson, National Fireworks Association

Julie Heckman, American Pyrotechnics Association

Lansden Hill, E.E. Hill & Son, Inc./Pyro Shows

Edward Kaminski, Clark County Fire Prevention Bureau

Stephen Lubliner

Mike O’Lena, US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms

Gary Rosenfield, RCS Rocket Motor Components, Inc.

James Souza, Pyro Spectaculars, Inc.

John Steinburg, Pyrotechnics Guild International

Darren Wright, Tripoli Rocketry Association, Inc

Christopher Wyman, National Association of State Fire

Gary Brown, Pyro Spectaculars

Jerald Farley, American Promotional Events, Inc.

Burl Finkelstein, Kason Industries Inc.

Daryl Marmon, Pyrotechnics Guild International

Daniel Peart, B.J. Allen Company

Gregg Smith, American Pyrotechnics Association

Tad Trout, American Promotional Events, Inc.

Gerard Wingard, American Fireworks Standards Laboratory

Demar Granados, US Consumer Product Safety Commission

Kenneth Kosanke*, PryoLabs Inc.

Richard Bowes*, Natural Resources Canada

Rachel Robbins*, Natural Resources Canada

Mary Roberts*, Estes Industries

Charles Weeth*, Weeth & Associates, LLC

Christopher Weir*, International Association of Fire Chiefs

Tony Zmorenski*, Walt Disney

Nancy Pearce, NFPA Staff

Brian O’Connor NFPA Staff

Guests:

Jim Beardmore, Pyrotechnics Guild International

Charles Walker, TNT Fireworks

Raechelle Laughlin, B.J. Alan Company

Jason Ng, US Consumer Product Safety Commission

Fred Wade*, Fireworks FX, Inc.

Kay Yeager, Colorado Springs Fire Department

Janna Shapiro, NFPA Staff

*Participated via Adobe/Sound Connect

3. Minutes Approval: The minutes of October 28-29, 2014 First Draft Meeting were

approved as distributed in the Agenda Package.

4. Staff Liaison Second Draft Presentation: NFPA Staff, Brian O’Connor introduced

himself and proceeded to give the staff presentation for the second draft meeting which

included general meeting procedures, a review of the Annual 2016 revision cycle, and a

review of NFPA’s revision process.

Minutes:

Day 1, Second Draft Meeting:

5. Arthur Barber gave his report on the water based protection systems task group, which

was tasked with determining the technical basis for water-based protection systems in

limited quantity manufacturing operations for composite propellant rocket motors.

Committee member Barber stated that there is insufficient technical evidence available to

require or to forbid water protection systems for propellant fires. The task group

recommended the removal of 5.6.6 from NFPA 1125. The Task group was then

dissolved.

6. The committee reviewed all Public Comments on NFPA 1125 and NFPA 1124. All of

them were resolved by either providing a committee statement or by creating a Second

Revision.

First Draft Meeting

7. NFPA Staff, Brian O’Connor proceeded to give the staff presentation for the first draft

meeting which included a brief review of general meeting procedures, the Annual 2017

revision cycle, and of NFPA’s revision process.

8. The committee reviewed all Public Inputs on NFPA 1122 and 1127. All Public Inputs

were resolved by either providing a committee statement or by creating a First Revision.

9. After lunch the committee broke into independent tasks groups (Trailer Task Group and

Mortar Rack Task Group) to work on their proposed changes to NFPA 1123. Committee

met briefly to report on each task group before ending the day.

Day 2:

10. In the morning the committee reviewed all but one Public Input on NFPA 1123. Public

Inputs were resolved by either providing a committee statement or by creating a First

Revision

11. Julie Heckman asked staff to bring several motions related to NFPA 1124 and the retail

sale of consumer fireworks to standards administration and they bring the motions to the

standards council for deliberation. Staff advised the committee that these actions were

outside of the normal meeting procedures but that the motions would be brought before

the standards administration as requested.

12. In the afternoon the committee looked over, discussed and made a motion to create a first

revision based off of PI#25. The motion was tabled at the end of the day in case

recommendations from the Trailer and Mortar Rack task groups included changes to the

same section as PI#25.

Day 3:

13. Chris Wyman gave the report for the trailer task group with eight recommendations. Ed

Kaminski then gave recommendations developed by the mortar rack task group. The

committee broke up into task groups once again to clean up the recommendations and

write them in legislative format. After task group work was finished the committee

reconvened to discuss and vote on proposed first revisions presented by the two task

groups.

14. Old Business: The work of the task groups has been completed and the task groups were

dissolved.

15. New Business: There was no new business.

16. Next Meeting: The Committee tentatively scheduled its next meeting for September 12-

14, 2016 in San Antonio, TX.

17. Meeting Adjourned: The meeting was adjourned at 11:57AM (MT) on August 27, 2015

Public Comment No. 1-NFPA 1123-2016 [ New Section after 4.7.3.1 ]

4.7.3.1.1

If no personnel are on the trailer during the actual firing of the display the requirements of 6.3 shallnot apply

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment

This additional section would allow for the use of small (e.g. 16 foot car haulers) trailers used for hand fire shows, where the racks are arranged so the shooter can safely ignite the fireworks while standing on the ground, to not be subject to the surface area requirements in section 6.3. The display area would provide adequate room for all personnel to safely stand during the display.

Related Item

First Revision No. 19-NFPA 1123-2015 [New Section after 4.6.5]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Mark Freeland

Organization: Western Enterprises, Inc.

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Feb 24 15:25:09 EST 2016

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

1 of 1 7/22/2016 1:27 PM

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics

FROM: Yvonne Smith, Project Administrator

DATE: February 5, 2016

SUBJECT: NFPA 1123 First Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results

(A2017)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass

ballot.

30 Members Eligible to Vote

4 Members Not Returned (Davidson, Hill, Jr., Pier and Wright)

22 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions (w/ comment: Dean, Kaminski and Wyman)

3 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (Dean, Grucci and Wyman)

1 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions (Miller )

The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the

explanation of the vote for each revision.

To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an

affirmative vote of 2/3 of ballots returned. See Sections 3.3.4.3.(c) and First Draft reference 4.3.10.1of

the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.

First Revision No. 5-NFPA 1123-2015 [ Chapter 2 ]

Chapter 2 Referenced Publications

2.1 General.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this code and shall beconsidered part of the requirements of this document.

2.2 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 160, Standard for the Use of Flame Effects Before an Audience, 2011 2016 edition.

NFPA 306, Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels, 2014 edition.

NFPA 1122, Code for Model Rocketry, 2013 2018 edition.

NFPA 1124, Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, Storage, and Retail Sales of Fireworks andPyrotechnic Articles, 2013 2017 edition.

NFPA 1126, Standard for the Use of Pyrotechnics Before a Proximate Audience, 2011 2016 edition.

NFPA 1127, Code for High Power Rocketry, 2013 2018 edition.

2.3 Other Publications.

2.3.1 APA Publications.

American Pyrotechnics Association, P. O. Box 30438 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1220 , Bethesda,MD 20824 20814 .

APA Standard 87-1, Standard for Construction and Approval for Transportation of Fireworks, Novelties,and Theatrical Pyrotechnics, 2001.

2.3.2 U.S. Government Publications.

U.S. Government Printing Publishing Office, 732 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC20402 20401-0001 .

Title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1500 and 1507, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Title 18 USC United States Code , Chapter 40, “Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage ofExplosive Materials,” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department ofJustice 1970, revised 1990, 2002 .

Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555, Commerce in Explosives , "Commerce in Explosives,"Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 171 to end, U.S. Department of Transportation.

2.3.3 Other Publications.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 2003.

2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections.


NFPA 1126, Standard for the Use of Pyrotechnics Before a Proximate Audience, 2011 2016 edition.


Submitter Full Name: Nancy Pearce

Organization: [ Not Specified ]


1 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Aug 12 10:06:54 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated to current editions.

Response Message:

Ballot Results

This item has passed ballot

30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All

2 Affirmative with Comments

0 Negative with Comments

1 Abstention

Not Returned

Davidson, Randall W. A.

Hill, Jr., Lansden E.

Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.

Barber, III, Arthur H.

Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.

Cesaroni, Anthony J.

Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary


2 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.

Weir, Christopher J.

Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony

Affirmative with Comment

Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment

Wyman, Christopher T.

Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


3 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 2-NFPA 1123-2015 [ Section No. 3.3.9.2 ]

3.3.9.2 Pyrotechnic Device.

Any device containing pyrotechnic materials and capable of producing a special effect as defined in thiscode. [1126, 2011 2016 ]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated to current edition text and year.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.



4 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


5 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 4-NFPA 1123-2015 [ Sections 3.3.31, 3.3.32, 3.3.33, 3.3.34 ]

3.3.31 Powder.

3.3.31.1 Black Powder.

A low explosive consisting of an intimate mixture of potassium or sodium nitrate, charcoal, and sulfur.[1126, 2011 2016 ]

3.3.31.2 Salute Powder.

A pyrotechnic composition that makes an explosive sound when ignited and constitutes the solepyrotechnic effect of a salute.

3.3.32 Pyrotechnic Material (Pyrotechnic Special Effects Material).

A chemical mixture used in the entertainment industry to produce visible or audible effects by combustion,deflagration, or detonation. [1124, 2013 2017 ]

3.3.33 Pyrotechnic Special Effect.

A special effect created through the use of pyrotechnic materials and devices. [1126,2011 2016 ]

3.3.34 Pyrotechnics.

Controlled exothermic chemical reactions that are timed to create the effects of heat, gas, sound,dispersion of aerosols, emission of visible electromagnetic radiation, or a combination of these effects toprovide the maximum effect from the least volume. [1124, 2013 2017 ]




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated to current edition.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention


6 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


7 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 10-NFPA 1123-2015 [ New Section after 4.2.2.6 ]

4.2.2.7

Cutting of fuse, including quick match, shall be prohibited when an electric match is known to be presentin the fuse or quick match being cut.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Electric matches are sensitive to friction ignition. This section prevents a known source ofsuch friction ignition.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


8 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


9 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


4.2.3.4

At the display site, assembly or repair of fireworks shall not be performed within 50 ft (15.2 m) of fireworksstorage any location where bulk fireworks, assemblages of fireworks, or boxes of display fireworks havebeen temporarily placed during or pending the set up of the display .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Substantiation:

In several display accidents, such as Ocracoke 7/4/07 and Lake Elsinore 8/31/12, operators and/orAHJs misattributed the intent of the current code to indicate that working on fireworks, installation ofelectric matches, removal of electric matches is only prohibited within fifty feet of licensed andregulated storage sites such as magazines. This revision would clarify the intent of the code- to avoidcreating increased ignition hazards in close proximity to bulk fireworks that could be accidentally thusignited. This clarifies what is meant by fireworks storage in this section.

ResponseMessage:

Public Input No. 22-NFPA 1123-2015 [Section No. 4.2.3.4]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren


10 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


11 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 9-NFPA 1123-2015 [ New Section after 4.3.3 ]

4.3.4

Plastic strip ties ("zip ties") shall not be used to secure or stabilize individual mortars or roman candles2.5 in. (64 mm) in diameter or greater.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Plastic ties/zip ties to secure pyrotechnic devices or mortars have been causally related to injuriesand accidents. Though zip ties/plastic ties may have high rated static test load bearing abilities, theyare brittle and susceptible to failure/rupture when dynamic loading is applied. When they fail, thedevice is then rendered loose or unstable and may discharge in unintended directions. In oneinstance, several roman candles were dislodged when a nearby flowerpot shattered/sheared the zipties/plastic ties employed to affix these candles to a fence. Several audience members were theninjured. Further, the plastic ties may be rendered soft and unable to provide the stabilization theywere utilized for when exposed to heat and or flame. Therefore, in pyrotechnic displays, the use ofsuch plastic ties should be prohibited for purposes of providing stabilization.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren


12 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


13 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


4.5.1.1*

A device constructed of two or three single-break, 3 in. (76 mm) spherical shells shall be permitted to befired from aboveground mortar racks. provided the mortar is strong enough to maintain form during thefiring of the shell.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Sep 09 13:50:52 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Salute components increase hazards in the instance of a malfunction. Mortars must withstandthe increased forces and pressures of the proportionally larger lift charges required for firingmulti-break shells.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.



14 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Dean, Glenn A.

While I do not object to the proposed change as a whole, I do object to the committee statement saying "salutecomponents increase hazards in the instance of a malfunction". This language does not directly relate to or ismentioned in the proposed change. It should be left out to simply state the mortar is to be strong enough.

Kaminski, Edward J.

The word "rack" should be added: ..... provided that the mortar rack ......


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


15 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 21-NFPA 1123-2015 [ Section No. 4.5.2 ]

4.5.2

Single-break shells greater than 8 in. (203 mm) in diameter and multiple-break shells shall not be firedfrom mortar racks other than as permitted in 4.5.1.1 and 4.5.1.2 shall not be fired from mortar racks .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Clarifies distinction between multi-break and stacked shells.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.



16 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Conkling, John A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Negative with Comment

Dean, Glenn A.

I object to allowing shells greater than 8-inches to be fired from racks and that's what will be allowed as thechange is written. It's been long held and demonstrated that a buried mortar greatly lessens mortar material frombeing expelled towards spectators. The committee statement does not contain any information or supporting datato justify the allowance of mortar racks for shells above 8-inches in diameter. And to the contrary, I don't think thechange sufficiently clarifies or distinguishes the difference between multi-break and stacked shells.

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


17 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


4.5.7*

Mortar racks shall be permitted to be constructed of metal, wood, or other materials as long as thesystem and methods employed in the use of the racks are designed to protect the technicians and thepublic from injury due to catastrophic malfunction.

Supplemental Information

File Name Description

1123_FR-30_A.4.5.7_final_clean.docx


Submitter Full Name: Brian OConnor

Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Sep 11 08:36:01 EDT 2015

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The materials used in rack construction vary widely in the industry. There is no one single material orconstruction method that is uniquely acceptable for fireworks display racks. This performance basedrequirement addresses the concern about mortar rack construction and provides direction to assureoperator and audience safety during fireworks displays.

While the technical committee is examining new rack types and display operation methodologies, thecommittee is also cognizant that many accidents characterized as "rack-related accidents" mayactually be causally related to violations of current code, specifically mortar stabilization, shell type,and chain fusing. Mortar rack construction may be neither a cause of these accidents nor a meansby which such accidents may be best prevented in the future.

The committee has provided code that addresses, in 1123-2017-4.5.7, the awareness that the entiresystem and employment of that system during a display must be considered.

As examples: how racks are secured and stabilized, the use of additional containment/frameworkconstruction, types of shells utilized, placement in the field, use of natural barriers/berms, use ofother barriers such as metal dumpsters, audience location, use of other, smaller caliber shell mortarracks to surround and contain the larger 5-inch and 6-inch shell mortars, chain fusing, use ofadditional separation distances as prescribed by code as related to use of chain fusing, etc., inaddition to mortar rack construction and the materials used for construction should be considered.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results



18 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

For consistency and style the words "as long as" should be changed to "provided that"


Agree


19 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


Grucci, Phil

Language as written is too vague to appropriately address rack stability and difficult for the AHJ to review forcompliance. Rack systems shall be constructed to withstand a failure of a firework device and to prevent theirbeing repositioned in the event of an explosive malfunction of the aerial shells, comets, or mines.

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


20 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

A.4.5.7

The materials used in rack construction vary widely in the industry. There is no single material or

construction method that is uniquely acceptable for fireworks display racks. This performance-based

requirement addresses the concern about mortar rack construction and provides direction in order to

ensure operator and audience safety during fireworks displays.

Many accidents characterized as rack-related accidents might actually be related to violations of current

code such as mortar stabilization, shell type, or chain fusing. Mortar rack construction might be neither a

cause of these accidents nor a means by which such accidents might be best prevented in the future.

Examples of the employed systems and methods related to the use of racks include the following:

1) How racks are secured and stabilized

2) Use of additional containment and/or framework construction

3) Types of shells utilized

4) Placement in the field

5) Use of natural barriers and/or berms

6) Use of other barriers (e.g., metal dumpsters)

7) Audience location

8) Use of other, smaller caliber shell mortar racks to surround and contain the larger 5 in. and 6 in.

(127 mm to 152 mm) shell mortars

9) Chain fusing

10) Use of additional separation distances as prescribed by code related to the use of chain fusing

11) Consideration for mortar rack construction and the materials used for construction


4.5.6.1

Plastic strip ties ("zip ties") shall not be used to secure or stabilize mortar racks.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

4.5.6.1 Plastic ties/zip ties to secure pyrotechnic devices or mortars have been causally related toinjuries and accidents. Though zip ties/plastic ties may have high rated static test load bearingabilities, they are brittle and susceptible to failure/rupture when dynamic loading is applied. Whenthey fail, the device is then rendered loose or unstable and may discharge in unintended directions. Inone instance, several roman candles were dislodged when a nearby flowerpot shattered/sheared thezip ties/plastic ties employed to affix these candles to a fence. Several audience members were theninjured. Further, the plastic ties may be rendered soft and unable to provide the stabilization theywere utilized for when exposed to heat and or flame. Therefore, in pyrotechnic displays, the use ofsuch plastic ties should be prohibited for purposes of providing stabilization.

Public Input No. 24-NFPA 1123-2015 [Section No. 4.5.6]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren


21 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


22 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


4.6.2 Chain-Fused Mortar Rack Requirements.

4.6.2.1

Unless the requirements of 4.5.7 or 4.6.2.2 apply, chain-fused mortar racks shall comply with thefollowing:

(1) Racks containing mortars 3 in. (76 mm) or less in diameter shall be limited to a maximum of 15mortars per unit.

(2) Racks containing mortars 4 in. (102 mm) in diameter shall be limited to a maximum of 12 mortars.

(3) Racks containing mortars 5 in. to 6 in. (127 mm to 152 mm) in diameter shall be limited to amaximum of 10 mortars.

(4) Racks shall not be used for mortars greater than 6 in. (150 152 mm) in diameter.

4.6.2.2*

The requirements of 4.6.2.1 shall not apply to boxed finale items as supplied by the manufacturercontaining only mortars 2.5 4 in. (64 102 mm) or less in diameter only .

4.6.2.3

The number of racks in a group of racks shall not be limited as long as each individual rack in the groupcomplies with 4.6.2.1 and the racks are securely fastened and stable.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Cross reference provided to new section and correction in 4.6.2.2 made as shown inprevious errata.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



1 Abstention


23 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree


Grucci, Phil

As stated in FR-30 section 4.5.7 as written is too vague to appropriately address rack stability and difficult for theAHJ to review for compliance. Rack systems shall be constructed to withstand a failure of a firework device and toprevent their being repositioned in the event of an explosive malfunction of the aerial shells, comets, or mines.


24 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


25 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


4.6.3*

All chain-fused aerial fireworks devices, including those not in mortar racks, such as R r oman candlebatteries and multi-tube aerial items, shall be held and positioned using stakes, racks, sandbags, earth,or equivalent means a system to prevent tipover or hazardous movement during operation.

4.6.3.1

Additional means of securing or stabilizing shall not be required if the fireworks device is stable bymeans of an adequate base to height ratio or inherent weight while functioning.

4.6.4*

The system and methods employed in the use of chain-fused aerial fireworks devices, including thosenot in mortar racks, such as roman candle batteries and multi-tube aerial items, shall be designed toprotect the technicians and the public from injury resulting from catastrophic malfunction.



1123_FR-23_A.4.6.3_final.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Addresses the concern for mortar rack construction by establishing performancerequirements.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned


26 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree


Dean, Glenn A.

In 4.6.3.1, what is the guidance for determining a minimal ratio or level of inherent weight? Is the ratio to be abase twice the height for each axis of the base? Three times? Four? How much weight? While the weight isexpected to change during the firing (heavy to lighter), shouldn't it start out as being bottom heavy? And if theanswer is yes, what should the weight be?

Abstention


27 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Miller, John H.

None.


28 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

A.4.6.3

Stakes, sandbags, trenches, boxes, screens, or barriers are among the common means

used to secure these chain-fused aerial fireworks devices that require additional

stabilization.


4.7 Trailer Firing.

4.7.1 General.

This section shall address the use of trailers as firing platforms for mortars, mortar racks, or otherpyrotechnic devices.

4.7.2

Mortars mounted on trailers shall not be reloaded during a display.

4.7.3

Mortars, mortar racks, and other pyrotechnic devices fired from trailers shall only be ignitedelectronically in accordance with Chapter 9.

4.7.3.1

Hand firing shall only be allowed if the setup meets the requirements of Sections 6.3 and 6.4 .

4.7.4

Mortars shall be made of materials approved by this Code.

4.7.5

Trailers shall be secured and stabilized at the discharge site and disconnected from the tow vehicle priorto firing.

4.7.5.1*

Trailers shall be stabilized to minimize movement in any direction during firing.

4.7.5.2

The deck of the trailer shall be constructed strong enough to withstand the repeated discharge ofdisplay fireworks and other pyrotechnic devices on its surface.

4.7.5.3

Trailers that are used shall be maintained in a roadworthy condition in accordance with all local, state,and federal regulations when the trailer is intended to travel on a public road or highway.

4.7.6

All mortars, mortar racks, or other pyrotechnic devices shall be secured in a manner that prevents anyrepositioning during the transportation and firing.



1123_FR-19_A.4.7.5.1_edited.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



29 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The use of trailers for firing fireworks is increasing in use. These are additional requirements forfiring from trailers to address issues such as the construction material of the trailer, securing mortarsand mortar racks on the trailer and stabilizing the trailer. Since mortars on trailers are typicallydensely packed and egress from the trailer is limited, hand firing has been limited to conditionssimilar to those allowed on floating platforms.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.


30 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment



Although we came up with a good foundation to start from, I don't think this goes far enough to address the trueissue.

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


31 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

A.4.7.5.1

Stabilization mMethods such as jacks, trailer dolly’sdollies, and tires could be used to

ensure the total platform surface area is stabilized during firing operations.

First Revision No. 24-NFPA 1123-2015 [ New Section after 5.1.2.2 ]

5.1.2.2.1

For display sites where fireworks are to be discharged from an elevation greater than 25 ft (7.5 m)above ground level (see 5.2.1.2 ) , the elevation of the firing site(s) shall be included in the site plan.

5.1.2.2.2

For display sites where fireworks are to be discharged at angles for aesthetic purposes (see5.2.1.4.4 ) , the location of the point(s) of discharge, the direction(s) of firing, and the firing tilt angle(s)shall be included in the site plan.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Information in the site plan regarding the use of elevated firing locations is needed for the AHJ toproperly evaluate and approve the proposed spectator separation distances. Information in the siteplan regarding the use of firing locations using mortars angled for aesthetic reasons is needed forthe AHJ to properly evaluate and approve the proposed spectator separations distances.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren


32 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment



Do not agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


33 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


5.1.3.1

For aerial shells, the minimum required radius of the display site shall be 70 ft/in. (22 m/25 mm) of theinternal mortar diameter of the largest aerial shell to be fired, as shown in Table 5.1.3.1.

Table 5.1.3.1 Distances for Outdoor Aerial Shell Display Sites: Minimum Separation Distances fromMortars to Spectators for Land or Water Displays

Mortar

SizeaMinimum Secured

Diameter of SitebVertical

Mortarsc

Angled

Mortarsd

1⁄3 Offset

Mortars to Special

Hazardse

in. mm ft m ft m ft m ft m

≤1 25 150 46 75 23 75 23 150 46

1.5 38 210 64 105 32 75 23 210 64

2 50 280 85 140 43 95 29 280 85

2.5 63 350 107 175 54 115 35 350 107

3 76 420 128 210 64 140 43 420 128

4 102 560 171 280 85 190 58 560 171

5 127 700 213 350 107 230 70 700 213

6 152 840 256 420 128 280 85 840 256

7 178 980 299 490 149 320 98 980 299

8 203 1120 341 560 171 370 113 1120 341

10 254 1400 427 700 213 460 140 1400 427

12 305 1680 512 840 256 560 171 1680 512

a See 4.1.1. Note: that the discharge of fireworks using mortars >12 in. (>305 mm) in size requires theapproval of the AHJ.

a See 4.1.1.

b See 5.1.3.

c See 5.2.1.4.

d See 5.2.1.4. Note that for angled mortars mortars angled away from the main spectator area , theminimum secured diameter of the display site does not change. Only the location of the mortars within thesecured area changes when the mortars are angled away from the main spectator area .

e See 5.1.4. Note that this is only the distance to the special hazards. The minimum secured diameter ofthe display site does not change.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


34 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The table note text is modified only to make the intent more clear.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


35 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment



Do not agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


36 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 27-NFPA 1123-2015 [ Sections 5.1.3.3, 5.1.3.4, 5.1.3.5 ]

5.1.3.3 Minimum Radius for Chain-Fused Aerial Shells, Comets, and Mines.

5.1.3.3.1

For chain-fused aerial shells and , comets, and mines to be fired from mortars, racks, or other holdersthat are sufficiently strong to prevent their being repositioned in the event of an explosive malfunction ofthe aerial shells, comets, or mines, the minimum required radius of the display site shall be the same asthat required in 5.1.3.1 and 5.1.3.2. (See also Section 4.6.)

5.1.3.3.2

For chain-fused aerial shells, and comets, and mines to be fired from mortars, racks, or other holdersthat are not sufficiently strong to prevent their being repositioned in the event of an explosive malfunctionof the aerial shells, comets, or mines, the minimum required radius separation distance shall be doublethat required in 5.1.3.1 and 5.1.3.2. (See also Section 4.6 .)

5.1.3.4 Roman Candles and Cakes.

5.1.3.4.1

For R r oman candles and cakes, the minimum required radius of the display site shall be that specifiedfor chain-fused aerial shells, comets, or mines, depending on whether they produce aerial shell, comet, ormine effects.

5.1.3.4.2

For R r oman candles and cakes producing both aerial shell and comet or mine effects, the minimumrequired radius of the display site shall be that for aerial shells.

5.1.3.4.3

During the firing of the display, cakes shall be located a minimum of 100 ft (30 m) from any ready box andmortars to be reloaded.

5.1.3.5 Ground Display Pieces.

5.1.3.5.1*

For ground display pieces of low hazard potential, the minimum radius of the display site shall be 75 ft (23m).

5.1.3.5.2*

For ground display pieces with greater hazard potential, the minimum radius of the display site shall be125 ft (38 m).




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The text has been modified. The separation distance in 5.1.3.3.2 is intended to be only for theconditions listed and does not necessarily double the overall size of the display site.


37 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

22 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


38 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree


Grucci, Phil

the rack or holder shall be "sufficiently strong to prevent their being repositioned in the event of an explosivemalfunction of the aerial shells, comets, or mines" regardless if they are chain fused or single fired manually orelectrically.

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


39 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


5.2.1.4 Angling of Mortars.

5.2.1.4.1*

Aerial shells, comets and , mines, and R r oman candles, and cakes shall be permitted to be angled asneeded to adjust for the effects of wind on the fallout of dud aerial shells. if either of the followingrequirements is satisfied:

The dud shells or components are carried away from the main spectator area, and the offsetspecified in Table 5.1.3.1 is followed.

The spectator separation distance specified in 5.2.1 is correspondingly increased in the directionof the angle.

5.2.1.4.2*

Aerial shells, comets, mines, roman candles, and cakes shall be permitted to be angled if the shells orcomponents are projected away from the main spectator area and the location of the mortars are offsetas specified in Table 5.1.3.1 .

5.2.1.4.3*

If the offset provided in Table 5.1.3.1 is followed, the mortars or tubes shall be angled so that any dudshells or components fall at a point approximately equal to the offset of the mortars or tubes from theotherwise required discharge point, but in the opposite direction.

5.2.1.4.4

Aerial shells, comets, mines, roman candles, and cakes shall be permitted to be angled for aestheticeffect if the spectator separation distance specified in 5.2.1 is correspondingly increased in thedirection of the mortar tilt angle.



1123_FR-29_A.5.2.1.4_final.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The text of the original 5.2.1.4.1 is separated into multiple paragraphs to better address the differentrequirements for angled mortars under various situations. Minor angling of mortars to compensatefor the effects of minor wind on the fallout of dud shells has always been allowed. The new textspecifically acknowledges this fact.

A.5.2.1.4.1 - Mortar tilt angle information is supplied because display operators with limitedexperience often seriously over compensate for minor wind effects on the fallout of dud shells. Often


40 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

this is done in a misguided attempt to also compensate for the effects of wind on the fallout of otherdebris from functioning aerial shells. The tilt angle information being provided is derived from acombination of actual field testing and computer modeling based on current aerial shell parameters(shell mass, lift charge amount, air density, etc.).

A.5.2.1.4.2 This change makes it clear that this mortar angling is only for tilt angles away from themain spectator area.

A.5.2.1.4.3 - Mortar tilt angle information is supplied because display operators with limitedexperience often have no idea what mortar tilt angle is needed to cause dud shells to fallout at therequired location. The tilt angle information being provided is derived from a combination of actualfield testing and computer modeling based on current aerial shell parameters (shell mass, lift chargeamount, air density, etc

5.2.1.4.4 - The text of the original 5.2.1.4.1 is separated into multiple paragraphs to better addressthe different requirements for angled mortars under various situations. The text is modified only tomake the intent more clear

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.


41 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment



Do not agree. I would have like to have seen the inclusion of a table of distances for angled mortars, similar towhat was presented.

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


42 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

A.5.2.1.4.1 For typical aerial shells, a mortar tilt angle of approximately 1.5 degrees into the wind for each 5 mph (8

km/hr) of wind speed aloft is sufficient to correct for the fallout of dud shells. However, this mortar

angling has little effect on the fallout of other hazardous debris from the firing of aerial shells, comets and

mines, and roman candles and cakes.

A.5.2.1.4.2

Figure A.5.2.1.4.2 illustrates some of the requirements for a permitted display site where mortars are to be

angled away from the main spectator area and offset (shown as d in the figure) up to one-third the

separation distance toward the spectators as specified in Table 5.1.3.1.

FIGURE A.5.2.1.4.2 Typical Layout for a Display Site Using Mortars Angled Away from the Main

Spectator Area. The distance, d, should be at least one-sixth but not more than one-third the radius

of the circle, indicating the minimum distance to the secured boundary.

A.5.2.1.4.3

For typical aerial shells, a mortar tilt angle of approximately 8 degrees is required to achieve the full one-

third displacements of mortar location and the center of the fallout area from the center of the display site.


7.2.3

Other dwellings, buildings, and structures shall be permitted to be located within the display site, providedall the following requirements are met:

(1) Approval of the AHJ

(2) Approval of the owner of the dwelling, building, or structure

(3) Assurance that the dwelling, building, or structure is unoccupied during the display, or the occupantsare protected by the dwelling, building, or structure or other means

(4) Notification to the responding local fire department if other than the AHJ




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

In some instances the authority having jurisdiction is a separate agency than the local respondingfire department. In those cases the fire department should be notified and aware of the fact thatdwellings, buildings, or structures may be allowed in the display site and be prepared to respond toany emergency; especially since we are dealing with fireworks displays on rooftops or other limitedegress locations with the potential fire hazard and life safety issues involved.

ResponseMessage:


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



43 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


44 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


8.1.1*

The sponsor shall consult with the AHJ, the local responding fire department (if different from the AHJ),and the operator to determine the level of fire protection required.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

In some instances the authority having jurisdiction is a separate agency than the local respondingfire department. In those instances the local responding fire department will understand theirresponse capabilities and should be involved in the planning and decision process along with theAHJ and the operator.

ResponseMessage:


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


45 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


46 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


10.1.2*

Applicants for licensing as an operator shall provide evidence of actual experience as an operator orassistant as part of demonstrating competency to the AHJ.



1123_FR-16_A.10.1.2.docx




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Assistance could just mean that the member participated as part of the crew setup. Annexmaterial was added to clarify that the applicant should have actively participated in the safeoperation of fireworks displays.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren


47 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


48 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

A.10.1.2 Applications for license based on experience as an assistant should demonstrate that the assistant actively participated in the operation and safety of fireworks displays. This experience should represent to the AHJ that the operator mentored the assistant in developing their skills as a future operator.


10.3.1*

Prior to performing the fireworks display, the operator, supplier, or sponsor shall obtain a display permitfrom the AHJ.

10.3.1.1

If the display permit is denied by the AHJ, the AHJ shall notify the permit applicant and specify in writingthe reasons for the denial.

10.3.1.1.1

The permit applicant shall be permitted to resubmit the display permit application to address the reasonsspecified by the AHJ for denial of the display permit.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The two new sections under 10.3.1 ensure that the permit applicant is communicated with by theAHJ and that the applicant has the opportunity to address any concerns raised by the AHJ. Theseare reasonable constraints on the AHJ and are an appropriate level of customer service that thepermit applicant should expect. The words supplier or sponsor were not stricken from the code assuggested in PI 7 since responsibilities for the permit could fall to those entities. The operator is stillresponsible for establishing the parameters for the show even when the supplier or sponsor obtainsthe permit.

ResponseMessage:



Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention


49 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


50 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM


10.3.4

The AHJ shall meet all the requirements of Section 10.3 Chapter 10 if the AHJ acts as the operator ofthe display.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

If the AHJ acts as the operator, the AHJ should be responsible for compliance with all of Chapter10 including licensing and other qualifications. The way the language was previously written, itinfers that the AHJ only had to qualify with 10.3 and 10.1 along with 10.2 is not applicable. There isno valid reason to exempt an AHJ from 10.1 an 10.2 so it should be clear that those provisions alsoapply.

ResponseMessage:


Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All


51 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


52 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 15-NFPA 1123-2015 [ Section No. A.3.3.11 ]

A.3.3.11 Fallout Area.

The shells burst over the area, and unsafe debris and malfunctioning aerial shells fall into this area. Thefallout area is the location where a typical aerial shell dud falls to the ground, depending on the wind andthe angle of mortar placement. The term does not include areas where cardboard and nonhazardousremnants of pyrotechnic devices might fall to the ground.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The added language in the PI clarifies that the fallout area is not intended to be the only area weredebris will potentially fall. The intent of "fallout area" is to only address the area where unsafe andundetonated devices may fall to the ground. Floating cardboard and other burned powder is notintended to be limited to the fallout area. This type of debris may fall to the ground outside the falloutarea.

ResponseMessage:

Public Input No. 3-NFPA 1123-2013 [Section No. A.3.3.11]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren


53 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment



Should include all debris.

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


54 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 25-NFPA 1123-2015 [ Section No. A.5.1.3 ]

A.5.1.3

Where more than one shooter is to manually ignite the aerial shells for an outdoor fireworks display, theline of mortars should be separated in some manner, and only one shooter should be lighting ignitingshells in each area.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The text is modified only to make the intent more clear. If electrical firing shells, this is notneeded

Response Message:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard


55 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


56 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 28-NFPA 1123-2015 [ Section No. A.5.2.1.2 ]

A.5.2.1.2

The increased spectator separation distance for elevated mortars allows for a wind component speedaloft of up to approximately 10 mph (16 km/hr).




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The text is modified only to make the intent more clear. This is not referring to ground windspeed, but to the wind speed above the ground.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard


57 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment



Do not agree.

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


58 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 17-NFPA 1123-2015 [ Section No. B.1 ]

B.1 Permit Application.

The following are recommended elements to be included in the permit application for outdoor display offireworks:

(1) Application for permit to operate a display of outdoor fireworks in conformance with the terms of_______ of the General Laws of _______ should be made in writing on forms provided by the AHJ.

(2) Such application should provide the following information:

(a) The name, address, email address, and phone number of the individual, group, or organizationsponsoring the outdoor fireworks display.

(b) The name, address, email address, and phone number of the supplier of the fireworks, ifdifferent from that of the operator.

(c) Evidence of financial responsibility by the sponsor of the event or festival and by the operator ofthe fireworks display. This could take the form of an insurance certificate or other documentattesting to coverage or responsibility.

(d) The date and time of day at which the outdoor fireworks display is to be held, with a proposedrain/wind date and time in the event the display is postponed.

(e) The exact location planned for the outdoor fireworks display.

(f) Confirmation of the license of the operator and the number of assistants who are to be present.

(g) The approximate number and kinds of fireworks to be discharged.

(h) The manner and place of storage of such fireworks prior to delivery to the outdoor fireworksdisplay site.

(i) A diagram of the grounds on which the outdoor fireworks display is to be held, showing thepoint at which the fireworks are to be discharged; the display site; the approximate distancesfrom mortars to spectator viewing areas; the location and approximate distances of allbuildings, highways, and other lines of communication; the lines behind which the audience isto be restrained; the controls that will be used to maintain audience separation; the location ofall buildings, highways, and other lines of communication; the lines behind which the audienceis to be restrained; and the location of other possible overhead obstructions.

(3) Upon receipt of such application _______ days in advance of the date set for this outdoor fireworksdisplay, the AHJ should make or initiate an investigation of the site of the proposed display for thepurpose of determining compliance with these regulations in the case of the particular display.

(4) The AHJ should approve or deny the permit application with comments provided to the permitapplicant. If the application is denied, the AHJ should specify the reasons for the denial so that thepermit applicant can attempt to address the reasons for a denial with a resubmitted permitapplication.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:



59 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The added information is necessary for the AHJ to determine if the permit application addressesthe provisions of NFPA 1123. The addition of item 4 is consistent with changes made to FR 11.

ResponseMessage:

Public Input No. 9-NFPA 1123-2013 [Section No. B.1]

Public Input No. 10-NFPA 1123-2013 [Section No. B.1]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.


60 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


61 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 18-NFPA 1123-2015 [ Section No. C.2.2 ]

C.2.2

Renewal of the license should be automatic upon provision of proof of active participation activelyparticipating in at least three outdoor fireworks displays and 8 hours of continuing education during theprior 4 years.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Continuing education is a key component to ensuring that an operator is aware of newtechnologies, safety advances and code changes. Eight hours is a typical amount of training timerequired in many jurisdictions and is consistent with the existing PGI certification renewal programrequirements.

ResponseMessage:

Public Input No. 4-NFPA 1123-2013 [Section No. C.2.2]

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All


62 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.


Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


63 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

First Revision No. 6-NFPA 1123-2015 [ Chapter G ]

Annex G Informational References

G.1 Referenced Publications.

The documents or portions thereof listed in this annex are referenced within the informational sections ofthis code and are not part of the requirements of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2 for otherreasons.

G.1.1 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, 2012 2018 edition.

NFPA 701, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films, 2010 2015edition.

NFPA 1122, Code for Model Rocketry, 2013 2018 edition.


NFPA 1127, Code for High Power Rocketry, 2013 2018 edition.

Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials, 13th 2010 edition, 2002 .

G.1.2 Other Publications.

G.1.2.1 APA Publications.

American Pyrotechnics Association, P.O. Box 30438 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1220 , Bethesda, MD20824 20814 .

APA Standard 87-1, Standard for Construction and Approval for Transportation of Fireworks, Novelties,and Theatrical Pyrotechnics, 2001.

G.1.2.2 U.S. Government Publications.

U.S. Government Printing Publishing Office, 732 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC20402 20401-0001 .

Title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1000 to end, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 171–180, U.S. Department of Transportation.

G.2 Informational References.

The following documents or portions thereof are listed here as informational resources only. They are nota part of the requirements of this document.

G.2.1 ANSI Publications.

American National Standards Institute, Inc., 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036.

ANSI/ASME B 36.10M, Welded and Seamless Wrought Steel Pipe, 2001 2004 .

G.2.2 APA Publications.

American Pyrotechnics Association, P.O. Box 30438 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1220 , Bethesda, MD20824 20814 .

“Celebrate Safely” (Videotape).

G.2.3 Canadian Government Publications.

Department of Energy, Mines and Resources- — Canada, Explosives Branch, 580 Booth Street, Ottawa,ON, Canada K1A 0E4.

The Fireworks Manual, Explosives Division Class 7.2.2, CANMET, Cat. No. M82-10/19911E, 1991.


64 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

G.2.4 PGI Publications.

The Pyrotechnic Guild International, Inc., P.O. Box 437, Chillicothe, OH 45601 1501 Cobblestone LaneCircle, Bellevue, NE 68005 .

“Study Guide for Display Operator Training Program,” 1993.

G.3 References for Extracts in Informational Sections.





Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated to current edition.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


30 Eligible Voters

4 Not Returned

23 Affirmative All



1 Abstention

Not Returned



Pier, David J.

Wright, Darren

Affirmative All

Altland, Gregory S.


Bowes, Richard

Brown, Gary E.



65 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

Conkling, John A.

Dean, Glenn A.

Grucci, Phil

Hanson, Garry

Heckman, Julie L.

Lazarus, Joshua

Lubliner, Stephen

O'Lena, Mike

Peart, Daniel P.

Robbins, Rachel

Roberts, Mary

Rosenfield, Gary C.

Steinberg, John R.

Trout, Tad A.


Wingard, Gerard W.

Yarbrough, Marge

Zmorenski, Tony


Kaminski, Edward J.

No comment


Agree

Abstention

Miller, John H.

None.


66 of 66 2/5/2016 11:29 AM

technical committee on pyrotechnics agenda second draft ... · pyrotechnic articles, 20132017...

Documents