Today’s episode of the Dust Safety Science podcast is a crossover with Nate Todd and the Ear on Processing podcast. Nate invited Dr. Chris Cloney to be interviewed for the Processing Pros series, where they discuss various topics and experiences related to process manufacturing. During the chat, they covered what Dust Safety Science is, our mission, and our role in the industry and communities we serve. They also discussed the current awareness of combustible dust hazards, including whether it’s increasing or decreasing, and how to identify and assess these hazards.
What Does Dust Safety Science Do?
Chris explained how he started Dust Safety Science back in 2018, following his academic research in dust explosions. He came up with a mission to achieve at least one year worldwide with zero deaths from dust explosions by 2038. Initially, it was just Chris working alone, but now the team has grown to five members. They create materials, online discussion resources, run events, marketplaces, and connection platforms, all aimed at addressing the issue of combustible dust.
Chris began with communication efforts by launching the Dust Safety Science podcast, which has been running for five years with around 280 episodes dedicated solely to combustible dust. In addition to the podcast, he has developed several other platforms focused on combustible dust, including Dust Safety Professionals, Dust Safety Academy, an annual event, and more educational initiatives.
Has Awareness of Combustible Dust Hazards Increased in Recent Years?
Chris said he found it interesting to note the varying awareness levels of combustible dust hazards. In North America, specifically the United States and Canada, there seemed to be more recognition of the issue today than five or ten years ago. This increased awareness was largely due to several major explosions in the mid-2000s, such as those at Imperial Sugar, West Pharmaceutical, and Hayes Lemmerz. These incidents prompted significant activity, including investigations and reports by the US Chemical Safety Board, the development of standards by OSHA, and expanded guidelines by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
However, Chris pointed out that this wasn’t the first time awareness had surged following major explosions in the US. Historically, these periods of heightened attention typically lasted about 20 years before waning. For example, coal mine explosions in the 1880s and 1890s led to extensive research into coal dust hazards, which was largely forgotten by the 1920s. Similarly, grain dust explosions in the late 1970s resulted in new standards, but the focus diminished by the early 2000s.
The 1920s saw a rise in concerns about grain, food processing, and various industries like metal, rubber, and aluminum. Insurance companies in North America collaborated with the NFPA to create standards to address these challenges. The first standard for sugar dust was created in 1922, outlining safety measures such as keeping dust collectors outside and avoiding hot bearings and ignition sources. These recommendations were still relevant in today’s NFPA standards.
In the 1970s, several large-scale grain dust explosions over the Christmas period led to the development of the US grain handling standard by OSHA. However, by the early 2000s, the focus on combustible dust hazards had again faded, until the Imperial Sugar explosion in 2008 reignited attention.
Chris noted that each country tended to focus on the types of dust explosions that had recently affected them. For example, in Canada, the emphasis was on wood dust due to large explosions in British Columbia in 2012. In Taiwan, the focus was on plastics, while Brazil was currently concerned with grain dust. The UK concentrated on wood dust following the Bosley Mill explosion, and Pakistan saw a rise in coal dust explosions. China, producing many metal products, experienced numerous metal dust explosions.
Chris’s concern was that we were at a critical point, historically, where awareness might begin to decline again. He appreciated platforms like the Ear on Processing podcast for helping to keep the conversation alive. By sharing information and experiences globally, Chris hopes to maintain and even increase awareness to prevent future incidents. He believes that recognizing patterns and learning from incidents in other regions could help improve safety measures worldwide.
How Can Companies Better Understand Dust Hazards?
Chris said he runs a number of platforms. Dust Safety Academy is free and offers hundreds of videos and PDF downloads. He also runs a podcast and an annual conference. For those interested in training, NFPA provides excellent resources, such as the Fundamentals of NFPA 652, which covers the basics of combustible dust. This training series is a great introduction and is reasonably priced, making it accessible for those seeking initial awareness.
Chris mentioned that he is also launching a new section on dustsafetyscience.com dedicated to combustible dust courses.dust. This centralized resource will make it easier for people to find relevant training. This new feature should be available in the next month or so.
NFPA 652 is an excellent reference for understanding the hazards at a site, especially in North America. This standard provides guidelines on identifying, assessing, and addressing combustible dust hazards. Over the next year, NFPA 652 will transition into NFPA 660, consolidating other standards into one comprehensive document.
Identifying the hazard involves testing the combustible dust to determine if it poses a flammable or explosive risk. The relevant documents provide a framework for conducting these tests and performing a dust hazard analysis. Once hazards are identified, implementing controls to prevent and protect against dust explosion events is crucial.
Chris emphasized that combustible dust hazard assessment is a specialized field. It’s rare for someone with no prior knowledge to effectively assess these hazards without professional guidance. Exposure to different types of dust in various regions (e.g., wood dust in Vancouver vs. coal dust in Pakistan) can shape perceptions and approaches to safety. Therefore, it is often best to work with a professional in this field to review hazard assessments, provide training, and mentor staff. Outsourcing dust analysis work is generally more cost-effective than training someone in-house to perform a thorough dust hazard analysis.
What To Look For When Hiring Professionals
Chris explained that Dust Safety Professionals has providers all around the globe, from Australia to North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa, who specialize in testing, consulting, and providing equipment related to combustible dust. The goal of the platform is to make it easier for people to find the right experts. For years, Chris received inquiries about reliable companies in various regions, which required him to research and provide recommendations. This led to the creation of Dust Safety Professionals, a platform where individuals can find the necessary information themselves.
When hiring in the combustible dust space, Chris suggests looking for three key aspects:
- Experience in Combustible Dust: It’s essential to verify if the provider has extensive knowledge and involvement in the field of combustible dust. This includes participation in relevant committees, conducting training sessions, and handling similar projects. One useful question to ask is whether they have ever witnessed a dust explosion firsthand, as seeing the potential violence of such events can provide valuable insights for conducting risk assessments.
- Experience in Your Industry: The provider should have experience specific to the industry. For instance, someone who has only worked in food and beverage may not be suitable for a metal 3D printing project, as the risks, ignition sources, and considerations can vary greatly between industries. It’s important to know what past clients and jobs they have handled in your sector.
- Experience in Risk Assessment Methodology: Depending on your location, the methodology for conducting a risk assessment may differ. In the United States, for example, a dust hazard analysis as defined in NFPA 652 is common. It’s crucial to assess how qualified the provider is in this specific methodology. In other regions, different standards like IECEx or local guidelines may apply. For example, British Columbia in Canada is introducing a standard similar to NFPA 652 but with some differences. Ensuring that the provider has local experience and understands the specific compliance requirements of your authority (such as a fire marshal or insurance company) is vital.
These three elements—experience in combustible dust, industry-specific experience, and expertise in local risk assessment methodologies—are what Chris looks for in providers to ensure they can effectively address the unique challenges and compliance needs of their clients.
What Significant Incidents Occurred Last Year?
Chris mentioned that his team was currently working on the data analysis for the Dust Safety Science 2023 year-end report. They needed to wait a few months to see if any government or investigation reports on incident data emerged before finalizing and releasing the report. Interestingly, it appeared that there were no fatalities in the United States last year directly attributable to combustible dust, although they were still verifying this information. If confirmed, this would be only the second year since 1980 with no such fatalities. Chris noted that finding another year without fatalities before 1980 would require looking back many years, underscoring the rarity of this occurrence.
Globally, however, there were numerous large-scale incidents. Coal mines continued to pose significant challenges, especially in regions with active mining. In the past year, large coal mine fires and explosions occurred in Colombia, China, and Kazakhstan, resulting in dozens of injuries and high fatality numbers. Chris recalled a tragic coal mine explosion in 1992, just an hour from his home in Nova Scotia, which claimed the lives of all 22 workers.
In addition to coal mining incidents, there were other notable dust explosions last year. One significant event took place on July 27, 2023, in Paraná, Brazil, at a large grain silo, where 19 workers were injured and eight lost their lives. This incident sparked increased focus on combustible dust in Brazil and across Latin America. Chris highlighted the educational efforts in Brazil, mentioning presentations by Monica Romano and Robson (from CV Technology) at their conferences. They both discussed the current status of combustible dust in Brazil, the incidents that occurred, and the regulations in place. They are part of a group, likely PCB, dedicated to training firefighters and industry professionals across different Brazilian states.
Chris explained that this recent activity in Brazil was being compared to the response in the US following the Imperial Sugar explosion, suggesting it might trigger similar heightened awareness and regulatory action. He advised looking up Monica Romano or Robson at CV Technology on LinkedIn for more information about their ongoing training sessions.
Chris also pointed out that there were many smaller incidents where only a few people were injured or one person tragically lost their life. He emphasized that injuries from dust explosions are often severe, typically involving burns and requiring treatment in burn units. These injuries, though they might seem minor compared to large-scale events, have significant impacts on the victims. For example, he cited a case where a father and son running a wood shop experienced a backdraft explosion from a dust collector, resulting in permanent facial scarring for the son.
Other incidents included 3D printing explosions in China, battery storage explosions in Sweden, and various grain and wood dust explosions worldwide. Chris encouraged people to visit DustSafetyScience.com to access their previous reports and look out for the latest report, which would be available in the next month or six weeks.
What Materials or Equipment is Most Frequently Involved in Combustible Dust Incidents?
Chris mentioned that most people would likely point to grain and wood dust as the primary culprits, and they are correct. However, the type of dust explosions can vary by region. In the US, there are numerous grain and wood dust explosions, while Canada experiences many wood dust explosions. Taiwan sees major plastic dust explosions, and Pakistan struggles with coal dust incidents. The industrial activity of a country often correlates with the types of dust explosions they experience. For example, the US typically has about 30 major dust explosions each year, while Canada has around three, which aligns with their respective GDPs. Though this isn’t a perfect measure due to local regulations and other factors, it provides a rough idea.
Regarding equipment, dust collectors have traditionally been the biggest contributors to fires and explosions. Research by the Chemical Safety Board in the 2000s highlighted this issue. However, their incidence seems to be decreasing, possibly due to better protection measures.
Other problematic equipment includes mixers and silos. Fires in silos pose significant challenges for extinguishing without causing explosions, which can endanger first responders and workers. Improper emergency response procedures, like using the wrong type of fire extinguisher on metal dust, can exacerbate these dangers. Metals such as magnesium and aluminum require specific extinguishing methods to avoid violent reactions.
Emerging industries like 3D printing, battery power storage, and robotics are contributing to more metal dust explosions. Robotics, in particular, introduces new challenges since processes that were once manual and stationary are now automated and more dynamic, complicating dust control.
Conclusion
The discussion on the Ear on Processing podcast highlights the critical importance of ongoing awareness and education in the realm of combustible dust safety. Despite historical patterns of waning attention, the need for vigilance remains ever-present. By leveraging platforms like Dust Safety Science, professionals across the globe can access vital resources, training, and community support. This collective effort is essential to prevent future incidents and safeguard lives. The insights from various regions and industries underscore a shared responsibility—ensuring that knowledge and best practices are not only maintained but continuously advanced.
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
The resources mentioned in this episode are listed below.
Dust Safety Science
Combustible Dust Incident Database
Dust Safety Science Podcast
Questions from the Community
Podcast Episode
Discussing combustible dust safety with Dust Safety Science’s Chris Cloney
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
Download the Episode
DSS275: Crossover episode With Nate Todd and the Ear On Processing Podcast
