Written by John Astad

Topic: General

Date: July 21, 2008 16:28

Director, Combustible Dust Policy Institute, Santa Fe, TX, USA Currently work in the Oil and Gas Industry on the Texas Gulf Coast as a Loadingmaster-PIC while maintaining regulatory compliance on the docks between the marine terminal, red flag barges and tanker ships. B.S. Business and Public Administration-Environmental Management Major University of Houston-Clear Lake 2002

more information

17 Comments so far
Leave a comment

As a sales company in the US and Europe ATEX Explosion Protection finds the ATEX standards and especially the approval process a breath of fresh air. In Europe a standard exists for all Countries (I view equivalent to our states). The approval process is not bias. Approved Government Bodies approve equipment to the same standards. Approval is a 6 month process rather than years with the two US private authorities. Never asked is if an FM or UL standard have been approved and submitted to any independent reviewer of standards. In point FM at times approves equipment without a set standard so one company’s approval may have tested different things than another done at a later time. NFPA standards while good are not the law unless the local authority has made them law.
On the reverse side European approvals do not consider at times when protection is required. NFPA standards do a good job at discussing when and how to protect.
In summary the review of ATEX/CEN standards verse NFPA/FM standards are not an apples to apples comparison.

By Dan Guaricci on 07.22.08 23:45

I work in the UK and I\’m responsible for Health and Safety. Our plant manufacture dextrins which can be explosive under the right conditions,how can the risks be assessed? There has never been and explosion since the site has been open over 30 years, yet we were asked to put up EX signs all over the plant which caused lots of problems with the local Health and Safety Executive which argued that all our production site should be intrinsically safe which would require a major overhaul of our premises. All the operators and contractors who come on site are breifed about dust clouds which I\’ve never seen materialize.We take health and safety very seriously but deem this major overhaul of our site as completely unnecessary, any information greatly appreciated when we had the site assessed no where on site was deemed high risk so if thats the case why do we have to change all light fittings pumps etc…… Very confusing

By Paul on 07.23.08 10:11

Thank you for starting this very good initiative; indeed the risks for combustible dust explosions is a global risk where macro-economical reality will require some sort of streamlining of acceptable “best practices”. Let us all work together to assist in creating a safe working environment.

By Roger Bours on 07.23.08 10:11

While I can agree that the dust explosion phenomenon can occur globally, as a member pertinent NFPA Technical Committees devoted to the problem, I take exception to the claim that the ATEX Directive method is somehow superior or even as good as the approach taken in NFPA Documents such as NFPA 68, 69 and particularly 654. In fact I would argue the converse, that the overall approach taken in 654 is far more practical and useful. The Chemical Safety Board has systematically investigated several dust explosion events and concluded that if NFPA 654 had been complied with most if not all of these accidents would not have occurred. Consider too, the consequences, in our system of torts, victims have recourse lacking in the EU. So when an EU based entity makes a claim of compliance with ATEX Directives consider that they have very strict liablility limits to protect them. As Dan Guaricci said, the two systems are not comparable. For every complex problem there is a simple solution and it is wrong.

By Bill Stevenson on 07.23.08 17:26

Dan, excellent overview comparing and contrasting ATEX/CEN standards versus NFPA/FM. Thanks for for the comment and providing all global stakeholders a brief and concise understanding between ATEX and the situation in the USA.

By John Astad on 07.23.08 17:50

Paul, thanks for bringing to light the situation concerning your facility. Congratulations on the outstanding safety record regarding combustible dust at your facility.

I understand your frustration and I appreciate your comment especially since that is the goal of the combustible dust page here on the Bulk-Blog, to open global dialogue concerning combustible dust in the manufacturing sector.

Concerning dextrin, I see on the BGIA database that dextrin has a very low minimum ignition energie[mJ] with an St 1. I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’m not an engineer and don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’t know the specific characteristics of the dust at your facility.

May I suggest you also post on the Bulk Online> Forums > General > Fire & Explosion Protection, ATEX. There are many engineers that post in that forum and can provide you additional specific information concerning the confusing ATEX dilemna at your facility

By John Astad on 07.23.08 18:11

Great to see a discussion forum for the more general issues that face this important industry. Here in Australia we have our own Australian Standards both established and developing – these are based in part on overseas experience. We have had more stringent OH&S requirements here for many years and have a Code of Practice for Handling of Combustible Dust.
I look forward to furter discussion in this blog as both US and Atex influence decisions on safety criteria in this part of the world.

By Tony Vierboom on 07.24.08 02:26

I welcome the addition of this blog and Xavier de Gea’s generous offering of his program for download. There may be those that would have an interest in our newsletter which is, again a technical and educational tool which we try to keep away from marketing and sales influences as best we can! Feel free to check them out at the link below.
http://www.exploguard.com/newsletter.htm

By Paul Henderson on 07.28.08 21:35

Thanks Paul for your weelcoming, I’m very surprisse with the success of LPGVENT program, still people inscribing and we are receiving very god feedback from users, and very nices comments that help to improve, we will continuing with this line that open doors like this one.

I hope some of you come the Barcelona Seminar in October 22on http://www.atex08.com/

See you

By Xavier de Gea on 07.31.08 00:05

Does anyone have any information regarding Petroleum Coke and the potential for explosion – Combustible Dust?

By Augie Rincon on 09.03.08 19:34

Are you referring to calcined petroleum coke, which is the product from calcining petroleum coke.

Calcining is a thermal treatment process to bring about a thermal decomposition, phase transition, or removal of volatile fractions.

Here are some informative links concerning the ignition sensitivity and explosion severity of coke as compared to coal http://is.gd/2bYj and http://is.gd/2bYn

By John Astad on 09.04.08 02:41

John,

This is Green Petroleum Coke – and has not gone through the calcining process. This comes straight out of the coke drums.

Augie Rincon

By Augie Rincon on 10.06.08 17:58

Hi John,
Another excellent blog, created by you. Very informative, and hopefully will generate the awareness of the Combustible Dust hazards, in the Manufacturing Facilities.

Jon Barrett
Business Development Specialist
Interior Maintenance Company, Inc.- Providing Green Cleaning Services For Your Facility!

Cell# 267-886-7903 or # 800-220-6547 Fax# 610-626-8860

Visit us at http://www.imc.cc

Specialists in Commercial and Industrial Air Duct Cleaning, High Surface cleaning, Dust Collector Cleaning, Combustible Dust Cleaning, Laboratory Hood and Vent Cleaning, Kitchen Hood Exhaust cleaning, Grease Trap cleaning, Dryer Vent Cleaning, Trash Chute cleaning, Dumpster/Container cleaning, Conveyor Belt Cleaning, Environmental Decontamination, Microbial Remediation, Building Maintenance and Indoor Air Quality Monitoring, Janitorial Cleaning, Dry Vapor Steam Cleaning and Sanitizing, Gum Removal, Graffiti Removal, and Specialty Anti-Microbial painting

By Jon Barrett on 12.07.08 23:15

I’m a Canadian Master Electrician and have just finished designing a retro-fit Class 2, Zone 1, Group F electrical system for a processing plant that wishes to bring coal and coke into their crushing line. If anyone with a chemical background would like to exchange info on this topic, I may be of assistance with the electrical scope of things. For example, a plant doesn\’t always need to go intrinsically safe and can save a lot of money with the right design.

By Tyler Minue on 04.03.09 00:16

With the recent ANPR on Combustible Dust from OSHA, there will be a US standard to complement EU ATEX. OSHA\’s current National Emphasis Program treats any dust with a Kst >0 as combustible and requires explosion protection for affected dust collectors. Does ATEX have the same criteria for combustible dust requiring explosion protection? Thanks

By don cross on 05.12.09 01:37

ATEX is single market legislation, intended to facilitate free trade across the EU, not safety legislation to protect workers. The worker protection legislation depends on a risk assessment; how big is your equipment, how often will a dust cloud be present, what would the consequences of ignition be? Almost all dust explosions start inside the process equipment. Worrying about ignition sources outside the process may prevent fires, but few explosions

By Alan tyldesley on 04.27.10 23:28

Kindly give details about Coke Dust Explosion and fire. What are engineering/administrative solutions for Explosion & fire prevention. I am dealing with Coke transferring with conveying system. This coke directly dispatch from Coke Drum after Thermal cracking process carry out in Delayed Coker Plant

By Vijaykumar B Shah on 09.30.11 08:09