Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 4490
NATO nations that ratify the agreement and implement it through national orders, and the laboratories they call on to test explosive materials against it
STANAG 4490 is NATO's agreement on the methods ratifying nations use to test and report the electrostatic discharge sensitivity of explosive materials.
STANAG 4490 is the NATO Standardization Agreement on explosives electrostatic discharge sensitivity testing. It is the first edition, promulgated 19 February 2001. Most STANAGs are short covers pointing a nation at a separate Allied Publication that carries the technical requirements. STANAG 4490 lists "Related documents: None"; its own annexes carry some of that content directly, though not for both of the tests it covers.
The agreement's own aim is "to standardise the test procedure to provide information on the electrostatic discharge sensitivity of explosive materials," and participating nations "agree to distinguish spark tests and large scale electrostatic discharge test, for determining the electrostatic discharge sensitivity of explosive materials." The two are not handled the same way.
The small scale "spark" test, covered in Annex A, is not standardised by this STANAG at all: "there is no standardised equiment for this test. Each participating nation will use its national test described in AOP-7," a separate publication this STANAG names but does not contain. What is common is only the reporting: ratifying nations agree that data for this test "will have to be provided by using the data exchange formats described in Annex A, as well as reference data," because it is needed for a material's qualification.
The large scale test, covered in Annex B, is different. Here, participating nations "agree to accept one test as standard procedure and to use the data exchange formats as provided in Annex B," so unlike the spark test, one method is common to every ratifying nation. Its data, too, "is required for qualification of explosive materials at ambient temperature and, if relevant, in temperature conditions corresponding to use in operation."
The agreement's own background explains the reasoning. Existing spark tests use small samples and simulate the discharge a charged person can produce, and nations' own historical data from them has been satisfactory for that purpose, "so there is no need to standardize the equipment." But such tests do not explain certain accidents that trace back to static charge building up on poorly conducting surfaces, such as plastics, in contact with explosive material, which "can lead to arcing and catastrophic accidental ignition." That is the gap the large scale test in Annex B was written to close, as a common, standardised procedure rather than a further national variation.
Annex B's own scope is that the method "may be used for the characterization of electrostatic discharge sensitivity of energetic materials such as non conductive high explosives, rocket motor and gun propellants," and that "It is not applicable to primary explosives and pyrotechnics." This page does not describe the apparatus, the sample preparation, the test procedure, or the values that separate one outcome from another. That detail is exactly what a competent test laboratory needs from the STANAG's own Annex B, not from a summary of it.
A STANAG binds a nation, not a company. This one "has been ratified by nations as reflected in page iii," and is "implemented when a nation has issued the necessary orders/instructions putting the contents of this agreement into effect." Ratification and implementation are separate steps, and a nation cannot depart from the agreement quietly: "No departure may be made from the agreement without consultation with the tasking authority." National staffs are the ones addressed directly: they "are requested to examine page iii of the STANAG and, if they have not already done so, advise the Defence Support Division through their national delegation as appropriate of their intention regarding its ratification and implementation." None of this reaches a supplier directly. A company meets STANAG 4490 only where a contract, a tender, or a national requirement calls for electrostatic discharge sensitivity data produced under it.
STANAG 4490 describes no certification or audit scheme of its own, and no company or product is certified under it. Both annexes tie their data to a material's "qualification," but the agreement does not say who reviews that data or grants qualification, and a qualification decision made about a material is not a certificate an organisation can hold. The only other document the agreement names is AOP-7, for the small scale test's own national procedure.
STANAG 4490 is an operational, test-method agreement, not a management system a company implements in software. Running either test, the national spark test or the shared large scale test, happens on a bench, and ComplyTrain does not perform electrostatic discharge sensitivity testing of any kind.
What ComplyTrain gives an organisation working to it is the documentation trail around that work: a controlled procedure recording which test applies to a given material, a nation's own AOP-7 procedure for the small scale test or the shared Annex B method for the large scale test, and why; training records for the people qualified to prepare samples and run the applicable test; and a retained, retrievable history of completed data sheets and reports, filed against the specific material, lot, or batch they cover and ready to produce when a customer or a national authority asks.
ComplyTrain does not run either test, operate or calibrate the apparatus involved, or grant, assess, or interpret a material's qualification. Which tier of testing and documentation a given contract expects is set by that contract and the customer's quality clause, not by this page. See what sits alongside STANAG 4490 in the standards explorer, and talk to us about what your contract actually requires.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 4490 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
Not by itself. A STANAG binds the nations that ratify it, and it reaches a supplier only through a contract, a tender, or a national requirement that calls for electrostatic discharge sensitivity data produced under this method. Whether it applies to a given piece of work is a question for that contract, not for this page.
The small scale spark test, in Annex A, is not standardised by STANAG 4490 itself: each ratifying nation runs its own national procedure, described in AOP-7, and only the reporting format is common. The large scale test, in Annex B, is one method every ratifying nation agrees to run the same way, with its own shared reporting format.
No. It standardises the test procedures and the formats for reporting a result. Deciding what a given result means for a material's acceptance sits with whichever process qualifies that material, not with this agreement.
No. Both tests are physical laboratory work, run either under a nation's own AOP-7 procedure or under STANAG 4490's own Annex B method. ComplyTrain holds the procedures, training records, and report history around that work, not the test itself.
Yes. It is a NATO document, unclassified and issued free of charge through NATO's own Standardization Document Database. We do not sell it or host a copy.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.