COMBUSTIBLE DUST TRAINING INSTITUTE — LIVE VIRTUAL TRAINING

✦ LIVE ONLINE · NOVEMBER 19, 2026 · 3-HOUR TRAINING

When Is the NLE the MFL?
Evaluating Combustible Dust Explosion Risk for Insurance Risk Engineers

From combustible dust hazards to informed loss estimates.

Built for risk engineers, loss control consultants, and underwriters at insurers, brokers, and risk engineering firms.

Thursday, November 19, 2026 · 10:00 AM–1:00 PM Eastern (EST, UTC−5) · 15:00–18:00 UTC

▶

Can’t make it live? Every registration includes three months of replay access. Complete the quiz within that window for your certificate of completion and PDH/CPD hours.

📅 Nov 19, 2026

🕐 3.0 Hours

🎥 Live Virtual

🏆 3.0 PDH/CPD

↻ 3-Month Replay

Live session + replay · 3.0 PDH/CPD hours

REGISTRATION PRICE — $499 USD

$499

LIVE EVENT DATE

Thursday, November 19, 2026

10:00 AM–1:00 PM Eastern · Zoom · 3 hours

✓3-hour training with Chris Cloney, PhD, PEng

✓3 months of access — watch anytime

✓Certificate of completion (quiz required)

✓3.0 PDH/CPD hours (self-reporting eligible)

✓Watch on your own schedule.

Secure checkout via Stripe · Taxes calculated at checkout
Group rates for risk engineering teams: contact us

Have you ever finished a site survey at a dust-handling facility and wondered whether your loss estimate captured the real exposure?

Most risk engineers can assess sprinklers, construction, and fire exposures with confidence. Combustible dust is different. A small primary explosion inside one piece of equipment, or incorrectly protected vessels, can set off secondary explosions through the whole building. When that happens, the gap between your NLE and your MFL disappears. This training shows you when that gap closes, which controls keep it open, and what to look for on your next survey.

MFL/NLE and dust controls

Reading DHAs and dust test data

How much dust is too much

Ignition source evaluation

Venting, suppression and isolation failures

Case studies by industry

Whether your organization uses NLE/MFL, PML, or EML, the question is the same: which dust controls can you count on when you estimate the loss?

Already confident with dust hazards? The loss scenario models and survey checklists in this session go beyond general dust awareness training. They are built around how risk engineers actually assess sites.

WHY THIS MATTERS

The Loss Scenario That Overrides Every Other Control

Some of the largest dust explosion losses on record happened at facilities where the hazard was known, surveyed, or partly controlled. Fugitive dust and gaps in protection systems turned a contained event into a total loss.

SUGAR REFINERY — PORT WENTWORTH, GEORGIA — 2008

14 workers killed, 36 injured, refinery packing buildings destroyed

A primary explosion in an enclosed conveyor lifted accumulated sugar dust and triggered secondary explosions through the packing buildings. The CSB found that a property insurance audit the year before had not flagged the dust accumulation.

Source: U.S. Chemical Safety Board, Report No. 2008-05-I-GA

PHARMACEUTICAL PLANT — KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA — 2003

6 workers killed, 38 injured, facility destroyed

Fine polyethylene powder accumulated above a suspended ceiling, out of sight of workers and inspectors. When it ignited, the explosion destroyed the plant. The combustible dust hazard had not been recognized. Insurance engineers had been on site in the months leading up to the deadly explosion but did not catch the hazard.

Source: U.S. Chemical Safety Board, Report No. 2003-07-I-NC

SAWMILL — PRINCE GEORGE, BRITISH COLUMBIA — 2012

2 workers killed, 22 injured, mill destroyed

A wood dust explosion and fire at Lakeland Mills destroyed the facility. It happened three months after a similar explosion at another BC sawmill, and it led to major changes in BC’s dust control requirements. The incident triggered a massive insurance liability and contraction in the insurance industry in this segment.

Source: WorkSafeBC Incident Investigation Report

ALUMINUM WHEEL PLANT — HUNTINGTON, INDIANA — 2003

1 worker killed, several injured, major property loss

An explosion that started in a dust collection system spread through accumulated aluminum dust in the plant. After the investigation, the CSB made several recommendations to the risk management and insurance community, including the need for training and communicating hazards more effectively to their clients.

Source: U.S. Chemical Safety Board, Report No. 2004-01-I-IN

SESSION AGENDA

What You Will Cover in 3 Hours

Preliminary schedule

~30 min

Model of Understanding: When the NLE Becomes the MFL

How dust controls factor into MFL and NLE, walked through loss scenarios from “dust collector indoors” to fully isolated and protected, and what fugitive dust does to that picture.

✓ A framework for how each control changes your loss estimate.

~20 min

Standards & Requirements for Risk Engineers

What dust testing (Kst, Pmax, MIE, MEC), Dust Hazard Analyses, and NFPA 660 requirements mean for your surveys.

✓ You can judge whether a site’s hazard assessment is credible.

~20 min

Housekeeping: How Much Dust Is Too Much?

Accumulation thresholds, hard-to-reach areas, rules of thumb for site walks, and why fugitive dust can override engineered protection.

✓ You can decide whether dust control at a site is sufficient.

~20 min

Ignition Source Evaluation & Control

Electrical and non-electrical ignition sources, including hot surfaces, mechanical sparks, electrostatics, and hot work, plus hybrid mixtures and maintenance issues.

✓ You can identify credible ignition scenarios and what to recommend to control them.

~10 min

Break

—

~20 min

Explosion Prevention & Protection: Common Failures Checklist

Venting, flameless venting, suppression, isolation, and inerting. What goes wrong in design, installation, and maintenance.

✓ A survey checklist you can use on your next site visit.

~30 min

Case Studies by Industry

Food and feed, wood processing, metal powder handling, and pharmaceutical facilities: what was missed and what it meant for the loss.

✓ Real examples you can use in client conversations and recommendation letters.

~30 min

Live Q&A

Open Q&A with Chris Cloney. Bring the challenging sites in your portfolio. Questions can be submitted in advance at registration.

✓ Direct answers for the occupancies you survey.

WHAT YOU WILL LEAVE WITH

Outcomes You Can Apply Immediately

A clear answer to “When is the NLE the MFL?”

A model for how dust controls, and failures in them, move your loss estimate between normal and worst-case.

A survey checklist for protection systems

The most common design, installation, and maintenance failures in venting, suppression, and isolation, organized so you can use them on site.

Confidence with DHAs and dust test data

Understand what Kst, MIE, MEC, and a DHA’s conclusions mean for loss severity, and when to ask more questions.

Documented case studies for client conversations

Real incidents with sources, ready to use when you need to explain why a recommendation matters.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND

Built for the People Who Assess Industrial Property Risk

Property Risk Engineers

Loss Control Consultants

Property Underwriters

Broker Risk Engineering Teams

Third-Party Survey Engineers

Risk Engineering Managers

Technical Directors & SMEs

For professionals at insurers, reinsurers, brokers, and risk engineering firms who survey, underwrite, or advise on dust-handling facilities, including food, grain, wood, metal, pharmaceutical, chemical, and plastics occupancies. Group rates available for risk engineering teams.

COMMON QUESTIONS

Questions We Hear, and Honest Answers

“I already assess dust as part of my surveys.”

Most risk engineers do. This session focuses on the hardest judgment calls: whether housekeeping is sufficient, and whether protection systems would work when called upon. Those two factors often decide whether a loss stays at the NLE.

“Our company uses PML or EML, not NLE/MFL.”

The concepts carry over directly. The session focuses on which dust controls to rely on, whatever loss estimation framework you use.

“I can’t attend at that time.”

Every registration includes three months of replay access. Watch on your own schedule and complete the quiz for your certificate and PDH/CPD hours.

“Can my whole team attend?”

Yes. Group rates are available for three or more registrations. We also deliver this training privately for risk engineering teams, tailored to your portfolio. Contact us.

“Does this qualify for PDH/CPD credits?”

Yes: 3.0 PDH/CPD hours, self-reporting eligible for most licensing bodies including Professional Engineers. Certificate issued when you complete the quiz.

YOUR INSTRUCTOR

Combustible Dust Training Institute

CDTI is the world’s only training and certification institute focused exclusively on combustible dust safety — built by practitioners with over 35 years of combined real-world experience.

Chris Cloney, PhD, PEng

CEO & Lead Researcher, Combustible Dust Training Institute

Dr. Cloney has a PhD in chemical engineering with research focused on the physics of dust explosions. He is a co-founder of CDTI, the world’s only training and certification institute exclusively dedicated to combustible dust safety. Over the past decade, he has worked with hundreds of companies and safety professionals worldwide on DHA methodology, electrostatic hazard assessment, explosion protection, NFPA and international compliance. He has contributed to standards development, hosts the Dust Safety Science Podcast, and has delivered training to professionals in over 30 countries. Chris has worked with risk engineering teams at global insurers on combustible dust hazard evaluation and loss scenarios, and his research team maintains one of the largest databases of dust fire and explosion incidents in the world.

WHY CDTI

Dust Safety Training for Combustible Dust Safety Professionals

🌎

World’s only dedicated institute

CDTI is the only training and certification body in the world focused exclusively on combustible dust safety.

📄

Built on current standards

Content reflects NFPA 660, NFPA 68 and 69, and international practice, focused on how requirements apply during insurance surveys.

👥

600+ course completions

Trusted by safety professionals across chemical, pharmaceutical, food, metal, and energy sectors worldwide.

WHAT PARTICIPANTS SAY

“Thank you again for this training. It was very interesting and well put together. I appreciate it.”

Greg O’Brien — Project Engineer, Nestlé Beverage

“I watched the replay of the course and it was excellent. I have attended and delivered many basic combustible dust courses and your course was a step beyond the fundamental material available elsewhere!”

Michael Rice — Field Engineer, Zero Industries

“The training was epic! Other courses such as CompEx and IECEx do not go into near as much detail about how to actually assess the hazards as covered in this program.”

Roy Davis — Subject Matter Expert, Hazardous Areas, RBD Associates

“I especially liked the examples and case studies reviewed, and the real world practical experience advice. The rules of thumb were also very useful.”

Sean Newland — Manufacturing Technical Support Manager, BAE Systems, Inc.

When Is the NLE the MFL? Evaluating Combustible Dust Explosion Risk for Insurance Risk Engineers

Reserve Your Seat for November 19

When Is the NLE the MFL?
Evaluating Combustible Dust Explosion Risk for Insurance Risk Engineers