Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

GUIDANCE FOR IDENTIFYING AND MITIGATING DUST HAZARDS IN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY Authors: Steven I. Meszaros and Ron B. Sethi

INTRODUCTION

In pharmaceutical industry, all facilities that handle solid materials should conduct a dust hazard analysis and prepare a risk assessment of the facility processes and equipment to ensure that specific measures have been taken to mitigate fire and explosion hazards and safeguard the health and safety of employees.

Dust explosion hazard exists when a combustible powder is present in a confined space. The presence of following conditions creates the potential for a dust explosion.

Dust must be above the minimum explosive concentration of the compound (MEC) It should be airborne It should be in a confined space There should be a source of fuel (such as O2 form air) There should be source of ignition (such as electrical and electrostatic discharges, mechanical energy, hot surfaces and flames, etc.)conditions creates the potential for a dust explosion. OSHA'S NATIONAL EMPHASIS PROGRAM FOR DUST HAZARDS: OSHA

OSHA'S NATIONAL EMPHASIS PROGRAM FOR DUST HAZARDS:

OSHA issued a new Directive No. CPL 03-00-006 on Oct. 18, 2007 for combustible dust explosion and fire prevention. This directive contains policies and procedures for inspecting workplaces that create or handle combustible dusts. In order to comply with this directive, each facility is required to make a formal documented risk assessment of each applicable process step that involves the handling of combustible dusts.

GUIDANCE:

Each facility should prepare an inventory of operations and processes that handle combustible dusts. Each operation and process should have a formal documented risk assessment completed to evaluate the adequacy of the layers of protection necessary. The facility risk assessment document should include the following:

Explosion risks have been determined and assessed.risk assessment document should include the following: Adequate measures have been taken to mitigate the risk

Adequate measures have been taken to mitigate the risk from explosive atmospheres.Explosion risks have been determined and assessed. Areas have been classified into zones for electrical hazard

Areas have been classified into zones for electrical hazard classification.been taken to mitigate the risk from explosive atmospheres. Workplace and work equipment, including warning devices,

Workplace and work equipment, including warning devices, are designed, operated, and maintained with due regard for safety.classified into zones for electrical hazard classification. Appropriate training has been provided, with respect to

Appropriate training has been provided, with respect to explosion protection, to those working in places where explosive atmospheres may occur.operated, and maintained with due regard for safety. Work in hazardous places shall be carried out

Work in hazardous places shall be carried out in accordance with written instructions issued by Wyeth.working in places where explosive atmospheres may occur. Procedures are in place to conduct risk assessment

Procedures are in place to conduct risk assessment of the process when a Management of Change (M.O.C) takes place.out in accordance with written instructions issued by Wyeth. The assessment must also document control measures

The assessment must also document control measures that are used to address housekeeping in both process and support utility areasthe process when a Management of Change (M.O.C) takes place. The risk assessment should clearly define

The risk assessment should clearly define layers of protection that are required for engineering, administrative controls and operating procedures.housekeeping in both process and support utility areas Existing Equipment and Processes: Each site with the

Existing Equipment and Processes: Each site with the help of a qualified person, should conduct a formal risk assessment of existing equipment and processes to identify potential fire and explosion

hazards from dust powders. This risk assessment should be documented. The document should identify hazards, evaluate risks, and define safety measures. The risk assessment should clearly define layers of protection that are required for engineering, administrative controls and operating procedures. The assessment should also document control measures that are used to address housekeeping in both process and support utility areas. The assessment should also include the following:

Document the hazard properties of the powders being processed. If the required data is not available, additional testing should be done to obtain this information.areas. The assessment should also include the following: Areas should be classified into zones for electrical

Areas should be classified into zones for electrical classification in accordance with NFPA standardtesting should be done to obtain this information. 499 and article 500 of National Electrical Code

499 and article 500 of National Electrical Code (NEC).

Determine the risk and explosion severity for each piece of equipment in the process.499 and article 500 of National Electrical Code (NEC). Where risk is identified, prepare an action

Where risk is identified, prepare an action plan to mitigate the risk for each piece of equipment.severity for each piece of equipment in the process. Ensure a safe working environment and appropriate

Ensure a safe working environment and appropriate surveillance during the presence of workers in accordance with the risk assessment.plan to mitigate the risk for each piece of equipment. New Equipment and Processes: The person

New Equipment and Processes: The person responsible for the project at the site (Project Manager, Project Engineer, Process Engineer, etc.) should review the design of new equipment and process to identify potential fire and explosion hazards from dust powders. A formal risk assessment of each equipment should be done and should be documented. The document should identify hazards, evaluate risks, and define safety measures. The risk assessment should clearly define layers of protection that are required for engineering, administrative controls and operating procedures. The assessment should also document control measures that are used to address housekeeping in both process and support utility areas. The assessment should also include the following:

Document the hazard properties of the powders to be processed in the new facility. If the required data is not available, additional testing should be done to obtain this information.areas. The assessment should also include the following: Areas should be classified into zones and electrical

Areas should be classified into zones and electrical classification in accordance with NFPA standardtesting should be done to obtain this information. 499 and article 500 of National Electrical Code

499 and article 500 of National Electrical Code (NEC).

Determine the risk and explosion severity of each piece of equipment in the process.499 and article 500 of National Electrical Code (NEC). Design of equipment and process should include

Design of equipment and process should include actions required to mitigate the risk for each piece of equipment.severity of each piece of equipment in the process. Ensure a safe working environment and appropriate

Ensure a safe working environment and appropriate surveillance during the presence of workers in accordance with the risk assessment.required to mitigate the risk for each piece of equipment. CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING HAZARD PROPERTIES OF

CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING HAZARD PROPERTIES OF POWDERS:

Most of the powders handled in the pharmaceutical industry are likely to be combustible and should be handled with basic safety controls to minimize the risk of an explosion or fire. The basic safety controls consist of the following:

Evaluating the hazardous properties of the powderor fire. The basic safety controls consist of the following: Controlling dust generation and accumulation Eliminating

Controlling dust generation and accumulationfollowing: Evaluating the hazardous properties of the powder Eliminating ignition sources Ensuring adequate fire and

Eliminating ignition sourcesof the powder Controlling dust generation and accumulation Ensuring adequate fire and explosion protection mitigation

Ensuring adequate fire and explosion protection mitigation has been provided during handling and for equipment. Protection may include, but is not limited to venting, suppression, isolation, etc.generation and accumulation Eliminating ignition sources Minimizing flame propagation and damage TESTING FOR HAZARD

Minimizing flame propagation and damagebut is not limited to venting, suppression, isolation, etc. TESTING FOR HAZARD PROPERTIES AND DETERMNING LEVEL

TESTING FOR HAZARD PROPERTIES AND DETERMNING LEVEL OF RISK:

For initial screening, the following tests are recommended.

Minimum Ignition Energy (MIE)Minimum Ignition Temperature (MIT) Thermal Stability Explosion Severity (K s t ) Note regarding minimum

Minimum Ignition Temperature (MIT)Minimum Ignition Energy (MIE) Thermal Stability Explosion Severity (K s t ) Note regarding minimum explosive

Thermal StabilityIgnition Energy (MIE) Minimum Ignition Temperature (MIT) Explosion Severity (K s t ) Note regarding minimum

Explosion Severity (K s t ) st )

Note regarding minimum explosive concentration (MEC): Most of the active pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients used in the pharmaceutical industry have minimum explosive concentration (MEC) in the range of 25 to 60 grams/m3. Therefore, it is not necessary to test the sample for this parameter. However, if the MEC is used as a process control, then the test is necessary to establish safe parameters.

From the results of these tests, the risk can be classified for the following categories according to the values listed in the following Table.

Low risk: not sensitive, non-flammable or not very violent. No action required.

Medium risk: may require actions on a case-by-case basis.

High risk: requires actions.

Parameter

Low Risk

Medium Risk

High Risk

Minimum Ignition

>100mJ

25-100mJ

<25mJ

Energy (MIE)

Minimum Ignition Temp. (MIT), Dust Cloud

>500°C

300-500°C

<300°C

Explosion Severity, K st

<50 bar-m/s

50-200 bar-m/s

>200 bar-m/s

Thermal Stability

No Exotherm

Exotherm>200°C

Exotherm<200° C

For powders having an MIE of less than 25 mJ, the following additional tests are recommended:

a. Volume Resistivity

b. Charge Relaxation Time

If N2 inerting is to be considered for any process step, testing to determine Limiting Oxygen Concentration (LOC) should be performed. For products that are going to be processed in tableting machines, Impact Sensitivity Test (Fall Hammer Test) shall be considered.

The exact material that is to be handled/milled/granulated/dried in the operation should be tested to obtain accurate results. Particle size, moisture content, etc., can significantly affect the data of the laboratory tests. If the material being handled is a mixture, the mixture should be tested.

Minimum Ignition Energy Test Dust Cloud

The Minimum Ignition Energy (MIE) Test determines the lowest spark energy capable of igniting a sample when dispersed in the form of a dust cloud. The test is used primarily to assess the potential vulnerability of powders and dusts to electrostatic discharges, but is also relevant to frictional sparks.

Minimum Ignition Temperature Test Dust Cloud

The minimum ignition temperature (MIT) test determines the lowest surface temperature capable of igniting a powder or dust dispersed in the form of a dust cloud. The MIT is an important factor in evaluating the ignition sensitivity of powders and dusts and is relevant for defining the maximum operating temperature for electrical and mechanical equipment used in dusty environments.

Minimum Explosive Concentration Test

The Minimum Explosive Concentration (MEC) Test determines the smallest concentration of material in air that can give rise to flame propagation upon ignition when in the form of a dust cloud. The test involves dispersing powder or dust samples in a vessel and attempting to ignite the resulting dust cloud with an energetic ignition source.

Limiting Oxygen Concentration (LOC) Test

The Limiting Oxygen Concentration (LOC) Test determines the minimum concentration of oxygen (displaced by nitrogen) capable of supporting combustion. An atmosphere having an oxygen concentration below the LOC is not capable of supporting combustion and thus cannot support a dust explosion. The LOC test is used to study explosion prevention or severity reduction involving the use of inert gases and to set oxygen concentration alarms or interlocks in inerted plant and vessels.

Explosion Severity Test (Kst)

This test is performed using the 20-Liter Sphere apparatus. A powder or dust sample is dispersed within the sphere, ignited by chemical igniters, and the pressure of the resulting explosion is measured. The sample size is varied to determine the optimal dust cloud concentration. The maximum pressure and rate of pressure rise are measured and used to determine the Kst value of the material. These data can be used for designing dust explosion protection measures.

Volume Resistivity Powder

Volume Resistivity is a measure of the electrical resistance for a unit volume of material, and is the primary criterion for classifying powders and dusts as low, moderately, or highly insulating. Insulating materials have a propensity to generate and retain electrostatic charge and can produce hazardous electrostatic discharges when exposed to grounded plant, equipment, or personnel.

Charge Relaxation Time Powder

The rate at which the charge on a material relaxes or decays provides an indication of its relative insulating or conductive character and serves as a useful companion measurement to volume resistivity. A powder or dust sample is placed in a test cell, and charging the sample using a corona source, measures its charge relaxation rate.

Thermal Stability Test (Bulk Powder Screening Test)

The purpose of this test is to simulate conditions in hoppers, silos, drums or bags and at the bottom of dryers where material can collect in bulk. If the heat developed by a reaction of a substance with oxygen or by exothermic decomposition is not lost rapidly enough to the surroundings, self-heating leading to self-ignition can occur.

Thermal Stability Test (Aerated Powder)

The purpose of this test is to simulate conditions in process equipment in which a hot air stream passes through the material. If the heat developed by a reaction of a substance with oxygen or by exothermic decomposition is not lost rapidly enough to the surroundings, self- heating leading to self-ignition can occur.

Powder Chargeability

Chargeability testing is conducted to determine the charge per unit mass of the material that can be developed on the powder material during a pneumatic conveying operation, blending, spray painting, poring, etc.

Impact Sensitivity Test (BAM Fall Hammer Test)

This test is used to assess the sensitivity of the test material to drop-weight impact. This test is performed using the BAM Fall Hammer apparatus developed by the German Federal Institute for Testing Materials (BAM).

HOUSE-KEEPING:

Each facility should have written procedures to keep the equipment and area clean and free of

dust. Special attention should be paid to interstitial spaces where dust can settle and form layers

over period of time.

cable trays, floors, above ceiling, on and around equipment (leaks around dust collectors and ductwork).

In OSHA's directive, a layer of 1/32" thickness over a surface area of at least 5% of the floor area is considered a potential hazard for fire/explosion. Accumulation on overhead beams, joists, ducts, tops of equipment and other surfaces should be included when determining the dust coverage area.

Examples of these areas are: structural members, conduit and pipe racks,

DETERMINING THE LAYERS OF PROTECTION REQUIRED:

Attached tables provide guidelines in the form of a matrix for protection of equipment for fire and explosion hazards. The matrix system is divided into the following four critical areas:

Table A: Electrostatic Protection All Equipment

Table B: Nitrogen Inerting Requirement for Aqueous Formulations, No Flammable Solvents.

Table C: Nitrogen Inerting Requirement for Formulations with Flammable Solvents.

Table D: Explosion Venting and Suppression System Requirements.

There are four primary options available for explosion protection:

Explosion venting with isolationare four primary options available for explosion protection: Suppression with isolation Containment with 10-12 bar design

Suppression with isolationfor explosion protection: Explosion venting with isolation Containment with 10-12 bar design Nitrogen inerting The four

Containment with 10-12 bar designExplosion venting with isolation Suppression with isolation Nitrogen inerting The four primary options for explosion

Nitrogen inertingSuppression with isolation Containment with 10-12 bar design The four primary options for explosion protection should

The four primary options for explosion protection should provide adequate explosion protection to meet the requirements NFPA and FM guidelines. These layers of protection must be designed by experts and in accordance to the code requirements. The selection of the correct layers of protection is driven by risks and needs to be determined by the risk assessment. Competent individuals trained in making the correct judgments on the risk factors need to be involved. The selection of a particular option will depend on the risk factors. There are many considerations that need to be compiled when determining the risk factors and completing a risk assessment. The tables below are not intended to cover every scenario that may exist and users of the tables must be aware that scenarios out side the scope of the layers of protection defined in these tables need to be considered in the risk assessment. The risk assessment should consider the following, but not be limited to the following factors when determining the correct layer of protection required:

Business interruption potentialwhen determining the correct layer of protection required: Potential for employees injury Potential for community

Potential for employees injuryof protection required: Business interruption potential Potential for community impact Capital cost Maintenance cost

Potential for community impactinterruption potential Potential for employees injury Capital cost Maintenance cost Environmental regulations for

Capital costfor employees injury Potential for community impact Maintenance cost Environmental regulations for emissions

Maintenance costemployees injury Potential for community impact Capital cost Environmental regulations for emissions release Company

Environmental regulations for emissions releaseinjury Potential for community impact Capital cost Maintenance cost Company policies and guidelines for product release

Company policies and guidelines for product releaseinjury Potential for community impact Capital cost Maintenance cost Environmental regulations for emissions release

DETERMINING THE LAYERS OF PROTECTION REQUIRED TABLES

TABLE - A: ELECTROSTATIC PROTECTION - ALL EQUIPMENT

 

MIE <10mJ

MIE >10 &

MIE >25 & <100 mJ

MIE >100mJ

<25mJ

1

All equipment (fixed & portable) should be grounded to a resistance of less than 10 ohms.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2

Plastic bags used for shipping and transfer of material should be anti-static with volume resistivity of less than 100 mega-ohms-meters and should be grounded before material

transfer.

Yes

Yes

Not necessary

Not

necessary

3

Operators involved in the transfer of materials should wear anti-static shoes or booties and anti-static gloves. The resistivity of ESD shoes and anti-static gloves should be more than 50,000 ohms and less than 1 mega-ohm (1x10^6 ohms) per NFPA-484. Specifications for ESD shoes are also covered by ANSI standard Z41-1991. See notes below.

Yes

Yes

Not necessary

Not

necessary

4

Operators should stand on a grounded surface during the transfer of materials. This can be done by using a conductive floor with a resistivity of more than 25,000 ohms but less than 1 mega-ohms (1x10^6 ohms) as per NFPA-484. Alternatively, if the floor is not conductive, a grounded mat can be used. See notes below.

Yes

Yes

Not necessary

Not

necessary

5

Scoops used in the transfer of materials should be made of metal and must be grounded (no plastics). Materials should be charged at a rate which is consistent with the capacity of dust extraction system.

Yes

Yes

Not necessary

Not

necessary

6

Flexible connections (hoses, socks, boots, etc.) should be made of conductive material with a resistivity of less than 100 mega-ohms (1x10^8 ohms), and should be grounded/bonded.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Not

necessary

7

If any chutes are used, they should be grounded. The length of chutes should not exceed 3 meters (about 10 ft.). To minimize dust cloud, chutes should be installed at an angle to allow the material to slide rather than free fall.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NOTES: a. For conductive flooring, the reason for specifying minimum resistance of 25,000 ohms is to provide protection to personnel against electrical shocks.

b. The range for resistivity for conductive footwear (50,000 ohms to 1x10^6 ohms) provides grounding of static discharge but reduces the potential risk of electrical shocks.

c. Measurement of resistivity of gloves should be done in conjunction with footwear.

d. Ground continuity should be checked periodically.

e. All equipment must be scrutinized and tested for isolated conductors. All such isolated conductors must be eliminated, reliably bonded to the equipment, or separately grounded.

TABLE - B: NITROGEN INERTING REQUIREMENT FOR AQUEOUS FORMULATIONS (NO FLAMMABLE SOLVENT PRESENT)

 

MIE <10mJ

MIE >10 &

MIE >25 & <100 mJ

MIE

<25mJ

>100mJ

1

Charging bins, totes, etc.

 

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

2

Vibratory Screeners

 

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

3

Low shear blenders (Ribbon, Tumble, Bin Blender, etc.)

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

4

High shear blenders/granulators (Diosna, ProcessAll, Collette type)

 
 

A. Stainless steel equipment in which the high speed choppers are fully immersed in the granulator

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

B. Stainless steel equipment in which the high speed choppers are not fully immersed in the granulator

*

*

 

* Not Reqd.

5

Cone Mills (Quadro, Frewitt, etc.)

Yes

*

 

* Not Reqd.

6

Oscillating Mills (Frewitt, Key International, etc.)

*

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

7

Hammer mills (Fitzmills type)

Yes

Yes

*

Not Reqd.

8

Fluid Bed Dryers

 

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

(Note-1)

(Note-1)

(Note-1)

(Note-1)

9

Dust Collectors

 

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

(Note-1)

(Note-1)

(Note-1)

(Note-1)

10

Tablet Machines, Coaters

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

* CONDUCT RISK ASSESSMENT WITH ASSISTANCE FROM EHS EXPERTS TO DETERMINE BEST SOLUTION FOR THESE CASES

NOTE 1: Even though N2 inerting is not required for fluid bed dryers and dust collectors for aqueous formulations, the equipment should be protected by explosion vent or suppression system or it should be a 10-12 bar containment design as per guidelines in Table “D”.

TABLE - C: N2 INERTING REQUIREMENT FOR FORMULATIONS CONTAINING FLAMMABLE SOLVENTS

 

MIE <10mJ

MIE >10 &

MIE >25 & <100 mJ

MIE

<25mJ

>100mJ

1

Charging bins, totes, etc.

*

* *

 

*

2

Vibratory Screeners

*

* *

 

*

3

Low shear blenders (Ribbon, Tumble, etc.)

*

* *

 

*

4

High shear blenders/granulators:

 

A. Stainless steel equipment in which the high speed choppers are fully immersed in the granulator

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

B. Stainless steel equipment in which the high speed choppers are not fully immersed in the granulator

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

5

Cone Mills (Quadro, Frewitt, etc.)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6

Oscillating Mills

*

*

*

*

7

Hammer mills (Fitzmills type)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

8

Fluid Bed Dryers

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

9

Dust Collectors

*

* *

 

*

10

Tablet Machines, Coaters

*

* *

 

*

* CONDUCT RISK ASSESSMENT WITH ASSISTANCE FROM EHS EXPERTS TO DETERMINE BEST SOLUTION FOR THESE CASES

TABLE - D: EXPLOSION VENTING, SUPPRESSION SYSTEM OR 10-12 BAR CONTAINMENT REQUIREMENT

 

Explosion Severity, Kst (bars-meters/second)

1 to 100

101 to 200

201 to 300

> 300

 

Dust Hazard Classification

ST-1

ST-1

ST-2

ST-3

 

Magnitude of Explosion Risk

Low

Medium

High

Very High

1

Charging bins, totes, etc.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

2

Vibratory Screeners

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

3

Low shear blenders (Ribbon, Tumble, Bin Blender, V-Blender, etc.)

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd. if vol. <8 ft3. vol. > 8 ft3, conduct risk assessment

If

Not Reqd. if vol. <8 ft3. vol. > 8 ft3, conduct risk assessment

If

Not Reqd. if vol. <8 ft3. vol. > 8 ft3, conduct risk assessment

If

4

High shear blenders/granulators (Diosna, Lodige, Processall, etc.)

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd. if vol. <8 ft3. vol. > 8 ft3, conduct risk assessment

If

Not Reqd. if vol. <8 ft3. vol. > 8 ft3, conduct risk assessment

If

Not Reqd. if vol. <8 ft3. vol. > 8 ft3, conduct risk assessment

If

5

Cone Mills and Oscillating Mills

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

However,

However,

However,

However,

follow N2

follow N2

follow N2

follow N2

inerting

inerting

inerting

inerting

guidelines

guidelines

guidelines

guidelines

6

Hammer mills (Fitzmills type)

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

Not Reqd.

However,

However,

However,

However,

follow N2

follow N2

follow N2

follow N2

inerting

inerting

inerting

inerting

guidelines

guidelines

guidelines

guidelines

7

Fluid Bed Dryers (Note 2, Note 3)

Not Reqd.

Yes

Yes

Yes

8

Dust Collectors (Note 2, Note 4)

Not Reqd.

Conduct risk

Yes

Yes

assessment

9

Tableting Machines, Coaters

Conduct risk

Conduct risk

Conduct risk

Conduct risk

assessment

assessment

assessment

assessment

NOTE 2: This table should be used in conjunction with the guidelines for N2 inerting for fluid bed dryers and dust collectors in Tables B and C.

NOTE 3: Isolation for Fluid Bed Dryers: For non-solvent based formulations in fluid bed dryers, isolation on the inlet air side is not necessary, because the fluidizing screen of the dryer acts as a mechanical barrier to the propagation of deflagration. However, isolation on the outlet air side is required. For solvent based formulations, isolation on both inlet and outlet sides are necessary.

NOTE 4: Isolation for Dust Collectors: For non-solvent based formulations, isolation valve or chemical suppression is required on the inlet side of dust collectors that are protected with explosion venting or suppression system. However, if flammable solvent is present with the dust, isolation on both inlet and outlet sides are required.

REFERENCES:

Following references will provide valuable guidelines in prevention and mitigation of dust hazards.

NFPA-68 (current edition ’2007): Guide for Venting of Deflagrations

NFPA-69 (current edition ’2008): Standards for Explosion Prevention Systems

NFPA-70B (current edition ’2006): Recommended Practice on Electrical Equipment Maintenance

NFPA-77 (current edition ’2007): Recommended Practice on Static Electricity

NFPA-499 (current edition '2006): Recommended Practice for Classification of Combustible Dusts

NFPA-654 (current edition ’2006): Standards for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from Manufacturing Combustible Particulate Solids

FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets, 7-73, Dust Collectors and Collection Systems

FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets, 7-76, Prevention and Mitigation of Combustible Dust Explosions and Fire

ATEX-137 (for European Union).

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E2019

British Standard 5958-991

European Standard 1241-2-1: 1994

European Standard: IEC 1241-2-3-1994

U.S. Bureau of Mines in ROI 5624, ASTM E-2021

The Institute of Chemical Engineers (UK), "Guide to Dust Explosion Prevention and Protection - Part 2"

(1988)

International Standards Organization (ISO) method 618411

ASTM E1515-93

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method E 1226

German Society of Engineers (VDI) Method 3673

Authors:

Steven I. Meszaros is the Corporate Director of Environment, Health and Safety for Wyeth and the EHS Business Unit Representative for Technical Operating & Product Supply, New Products and Process Development organization. He provides oversight and standardization of the EHS services and support to Wyeth’s worldwide sites. Steve was assigned to the TO&PS NP&PD organization in June 2007. Steve was assigned to the Global EHS group in 2001. Prior to the assignment in the Global EHS group he was the Corporate Safety and Loss Prevention Manager for American Home Products. Steve has worked for Wyeth since 1980. He has had many foreign assignments, in various roles in Manufacturing, Engineering and EHS. His areas of expertise are Facility Management, Business Continuity, Process Safety, Environmental, Safety, Hygiene and Loss Prevention. He is a member of the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) Technical Steering Committee and is active with the AIChE and NFPA. He has published numerous articles and texts on Process Safety. Recently he was the Committee Chair for the newly published CCPS book “Inherently Safer Chemical Processes – A Life Cycle Approach, Second Edition”.

Ron B. Sethi is Staff Consultant for Wyeth. Ron has worked for American Cyanamid, BASF and Wyeth for 42 years. Ron is a Process Safety Expert and focuses on providing technical process safety service in the areas of contract manufacturing, dust explosion mitigation, reactive chemistry, flammable handling, and general facility and employee safety.