DSS024: Understanding Chinese National Standards for Explosion Safety with Niklas Kitzhöfer

In this episode of the Dust Safety Science Podcast, we interview Niklas Kitzhöfer, managing director of Rembe China Ltd. in Shanghai, about Chinese national standards for explosion safety. During this conversation, Niklas provides a valuable overview of how China treats explosion safety, especially where combustible dust is concerned. This includes:

The GB/T standard that appeared in 2008
The impact of the Kunshan aluminum dust explosion
The current regulatory framework
The different groups that are working to improve education in this area
Some of the difficulties that Niklas sees in China and how they relate to explosion safety in other countries

Niklas’s regular duties at Rembe China Ltd include plant safety inspections in customer factories and explosion protection designs. He is also the Intercontinental Association of Experts for Industrial Explosion Protection (INDEX) ambassador in China, which gives him a unique and authoritative insight into combustible dust safety in the country.

The GB/T Standard and the Kunshan Aluminum Dust Explosion

The first standard that Niklas encountered was the GB/T 15605-2008. GB stood for Guobiao standards, which he described as “the NFPA of China.” The ‘T’ indicated that the standard was only a recommendation instead of compulsory, which made dust explosion safety difficult to enforce.

Things changed after the Kunshan explosion. On August 2, 2014, a dust explosion occurred at Zhongrong Metal Production Company, an automotive parts factory located in Kunshan, Jiangsu, China. It is believed to have been caused by flames igniting metal polishing dust. According to Niklas, it started in a dust collector and then, due to lack of explosion isolation, the explosion propagated back towards the workshop and created a huge secondary explosion

Over 260 people were present at the time, 44 of whom were killed instantly while an additional 31 died at local hospitals. By December 30, the total loss from the explosion included 146 killed and 114 injured.

The Kunshan explosion was a wake-up call for the Chinese government. Universities and official institutions began to recommend guidelines, one of which was AQ 4273-2016, which addresses dust collector safety. However, all of these Chinese national standards continue to be guidelines and are not yet specific. In most cases, international standards are used, with some additional suggestions thrown in, which tends to confuse the people who have to apply them.

How is Combustible Dust Treated in China?

When asked how combustible dust is handled in China’s regulatory framework, Niklas explained that the GB/T was essentially a code for combustible dust and AQ addresses dust collectors. In this respect, dust explosions are separate from similar phenomenons such as gas explosions, but enforcement remains a challenge.

He explained that in China, the wood industry, in particular, has very poor requirements, none of which can be enforced. It is difficult for them to ensure safety because there is no budget for it. This is probably one of the reasons why there is still no compulsory standard, only a recommendation of GB/T.

How is Awareness of Combustible Dust Safety Being Spread?

Regarding education about combustible dust hazards, Niklas explained that China is comparatively advanced. Northeastern University in Shanghai and notified bodies like Intercontinental Association of Experts for Industrial Explosion Protection (INDEX) are working with the government to hold seminars and conferences for certain industries, so that people are more aware of dust explosion hazards and the available protection methods.

The government is also dispatching inspectors to enforce standards in plants as part of an effort to share knowledge and trying to enlist police cooperation in enforcing them; but China is such a huge country that it’s difficult to reach everyone.

Difficulties With Explosion Prevention Standards in China

Recent days have seen some large-scale explosions in China. Niklas said that there are two main parts of the standard: legislation from operators and legislation for equipment manufacturers. Both are lacking to a current extent, which he was especially concerned that testing standards for equipment manufacturers are not yet in effect. There’s also no certified testing facility, so local manufacturers are making devices that they know nothing about and selling them. This is a big hazard because the end users get a false feeling of safety.

The other big issue is that there are no compulsory standards for such equipment. Progress is being made by the standard committees in Chinese institutes and universities, but perhaps the best solution would be to adopt an existing international standard, such as European or American, and follow it instead of creating something totally different using mismatched standards from the NFPA in America, VDI in Germany, and some country-specific guidelines.

Niklas gave an example of how outdated and mismatched standards can create a dangerous situation. When isolating the inlet duct for a dust collector, a vent should also be applied on the ductwork. This vent should be the size / diameter of the ductwork and applied every six meters. For an indoor dust collector with a 20-meter suction line, you would need six flameless venting devices on the ductwork, which makes implementation very difficult.

Conclusion

Niklas recommended that countries like China follow the latest version of one of the big standards instead of reinventing the wheel. When you adopt guidelines from various international sources and insert your own recommendations here and there, it creates a new set of approaches that may not be efficient or safe. It’s better to forgo originality in favor of choosing a system that’s current and proven. As Niklas stated, “There is no competition in explosion safety. We can be the front runners in this part of the globalization.”

If you would like to discuss further, leave your thoughts in the comments section below. You can also reach Niklas Kitzhöfer directly:
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/niklas-kitzhoefer-37630880/

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.