In today’s episode of the Dust Safety Science podcast, Michel Vandeweyer, Explosion Safety Consultant from ISMA in Antwerp, Belgium, goes over the current status of combustible dust safety in Belgium. In the process, he shares some case studies that support a better understanding of the situation. This episode is part one of a two-part series on this subject.
Michel explained that Belgium and the Netherlands have a very strongly developed industry, and a lot of that industry concerns combustible dust. He and his colleagues at ISMA help companies control their gas and dust explosion risks through training, risk analyses, and incident analyses.
“We work in all different sectors of the industry, from petrochemical to food and feed industries, and from small businesses to multinationals,” he said. “That almost guarantees that we will never have the same job twice. There’s always some difference between the companies in philosophy and safety level, which is also a very important thing to take into mind.”
How Frequent Are Dust Explosions in Belgium?
He said that there is not much incident data available, but from his experience and the few statistics that are available, dust and gas explosions happen approximately once a week in Belgium and the Netherlands.
“Most often, these explosions have very limited consequences, and they stay under the radar. The problem there is that other companies feel like it cannot happen to them because they don’t hear about it.”
When he works with clients, Michel uses three factors to ensure the advice he gives is both accurate and workable.
Keeping Up to Date
“First, we try to give our customers up-to-date knowledge of the science behind dust and gas explosions,” he says. “So we must stay up to date. Standards and legislation are constantly changing.”
Involvement in Standards Development
ISMA is a member of normalization committees that contribute to the development of standards and guidelines.
“The knowledge about explosions and dust explosions is present in our company, but we also come into industrial processes. We need to evaluate the process flows, and if you don’t know anything about processes, you cannot correctly evaluate the explosion risk that comes from that process. So all of our consultants have a [deep] background in these industrial processing installations so we can give the best of both worlds. We know a lot about explosions and dust explosions [and we] know a lot about these industrial processes that we very often meet.
No Sales Involved
“We don’t sell hardware,” Michel said. “We have no interest in advising our customer about the most expensive protection measure that is on the market. We are part of a larger group that includes a hardware manufacturer, but we must operate independently and that gives us the freedom to really aim for the best solution for the customer. Even if the customer wishes to work with another supplier like Fike or Rembe, we can still support our customer that way.”
How Do Companies Treat Near Misses?
Michel said that from his personal experience, a lot of companies that experience a near miss consider themselves lucky and don’t believe something similar will happen in the future. For example, they had a truck with smouldering material arrive, so they put infrared detectors there and presume they are safe.
“Most of the time that is the case- the possibility of an explosion happening is very small. The possibility of it happening twice at the same company is even smaller. But that’s a dangerous way of thinking, I believe.”
What Safety Processes Are Followed in Belgium?
Belgium and the Netherlands are part of the European Union, which is governed by the ATEX legislation, which is ATEX 114 and ATEX 153.
- ATEX 114 is an economical directive that outlines the requirements for equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres.
- ATEX 153 is a social directive that requires employers to assess the risks of explosions in the workplace and take measures to eliminate or reduce those risks.
Each country in the European Union must incorporate this legislation into their own laws. Michel added that ATEX 114 has to be implemented literally.
“A country cannot choose to be more stringent or less stringent. This means that equipment bought in Spain (for example) is as safe as equipment bought in another country, like Sweden. They all must be in conformity to the ATEX 114 Directive, and they must follow the same European standards and procedures like certification and testing. They all have the same backgrounds. They all have the same legislation where they come from, where the safety level is guaranteed.”
With ATEX 153, each country in the EU can choose to implement it more stringently. For example, they can add supporting legislation.
“That’s why there are a lot of differences between the different European countries. The original legislation is the same but they all implement it differently, and that is quite a problem for countries with branches or establishments in multiple countries.”
In Belgium, ATEX 153 legislation is largely included in the Codex, which is legislation protecting the well-being of personnel. However, the electrical installation regulations also include a part called AREI. Since Belgium is also divided into different regions, some laws vary from one region to another, such as Flanders, the French part, and the German part. As a result, it is not too easy to apply the correct legislation to different countries.
“To summarize, every country has its own gimmicks, its own standards, guidelines or even additional legal requirements that must be taken into account,” Michel said. “That makes our work so challenging from time to time.”
How Does Belgium Observe ATEX 153 Compared to Other Countries?
While the fundamentals are the same, each country tends to observe it differently. For example, there may be variations in the following:
- Responsibilities
- How zoning plans are drawn
- Whether these plans need to be checked by an independent entity
These things, it’s all little details, but a lot of paperwork that’s different between the countries to reach that same goal that is outlined in the ATEX 153 legislation.
Three Steps for the ATEX Legislation
Michael explained that the ATEX 153 legislation is based on three steps, which are outlined below.
Evaluate for the Possibility of an Explosive Atmosphere
“Your first step should be to determine whether there’s a possibility of an explosive atmosphere,” Michel said. “It’s called ATEX Zoning. For dust, we speak of a Zone 22, a Zone 21 and a Zone 20 where Zone 20 is the worst and a Zone 22 is unlikely, but cannot be completely excluded. Zone 21 is everything in between. And as a company, you should identify these zones and you should aim to reduce the size of them.”
Look for Ignition Sources
Once a zone is defined as a hazardous area, managers should eliminate the possibility of an ignition source happening there. In the case of an explosive dust cloud, if you add an ignition source, you have an explosion. Therefore, these ignition sources must be evaluated to determine if they are relevant and significant. If they can be formed, then they are relevant to an installation.
“It is only logical that a Zone 20 has more strict requirements in comparison to a Zone 22,” Michel said. “In a Zone 22, if you have an ignition source, it should be avoided in normal operation. In a Zone 21, you should consider foreseeable faults like failure of bearing or rupture of components. In a Zone 20, this ignition source should also be excluded in rare faults or multiple foreseeable faults happening at the same time. So the evaluation of an ignition source can happen, must be done. But you should also take into account the degree of the zone, and that combined gives you your risk, and then you can see if it’s acceptable or not.”
Consider How to Mitigate the Consequences of an Explosion
It is important to consider how the explosion’s consequences can be mitigated, as ignition sources cannot always be excluded by a sufficient degree of certainty.
“For example, if we take a filter casing, you have a practically permanent dust cloud,” Michel said. “A dust filter always extracts from points where an ignition source might be sucked up. This means that there remains a residual risk that is unacceptably high, and therefore you should reduce the consequences of an explosion if it happens. For example, you could add vent panels to your filter casing.”
Conclusion
Michel emphasized the importance of taking the above three steps in the correct order.
“Most often, a company just puts vent panels on equipment and says, “Well, it’s safe,” and that’s not the correct way to do it. So, you should first try to reduce your zones. Secondly, try to eliminate your ignition sources and only then can you resort to measures like vent panels, suppression systems and these things. These exercises must be recorded in an explosion protection document, which is also a legal requirement.”
This conversation with Michel will continue in the next episode. Please check it out!
If you would like to discuss further, leave your thoughts in the comments section below. You can also reach Michel Vandeweyer directly:
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.isma.be/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michel-vandeweyer-0200071a0/
If you have questions about the contents of this or any other podcast episode, you can go to our ‘Questions from the Community’ page and submit a text message or video recording. We will then bring someone on to answer these questions in a future episode.
Resources mentioned
Dust Safety Science
Combustible Dust Incident Database
Dust Safety Science Podcast
Questions from the Community
Dust Safety Academy
Dust Safety Professionals
Dust Safety Share
Companies
Thanks for Listening!
To share your thoughts:
- Leave a note in the comment section below
- Ask a question to be answered on the show
- Share this episode on LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook
To help out the show:
- Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes
- Leave a review and rate our show in iTunes to help the podcast reach more people
