Case Study: Hazardous Area Classification of MAP WG at UPL

Case Study: Hazardous Area Classification of MAP WG at UPL

Client Overview:

UPL, a manufacturing company, engaged HSE Risk Management Services Private Limited to conduct a Hazardous Area Classification (HAC) of their MAP WG plant. The objective was to evaluate and improve safety measures concerning the handling of flammable fluids and combustible dusts in compliance with legal requirements and company safety policies.

Process Description:

The MAP WG Plant involves several critical processes such as solution and homogeneous slurry preparations, blending, drying, and packing.

HAC Concept:

The Hazardous Area Classification aims to prevent ignition of potential releases of flammable liquids, vapors, and combustible dusts during the operation of facilities. It identifies and classifies hazardous areas into Zones based on the likelihood of a flammable atmosphere coexisting with an ignition source.

Hazard Area Classification Methodology:

• For flammable liquids/ gases/ vapors:

The procedure of HAC involves following steps:

• Identification of Point Source or Source of Release: Locate where flammable substances may escape.

• Determine the Grade of Release: Assess the severity and quantity of the potential release.

• Determine the release rate: Calculate the rate at which the substance could be released.

• Assess ventilation or dilution condition and effectiveness: Evaluate the effectiveness of ventilation systems in dispersing the released substance.

• Determine Zone type :Classify the area as Zone 0, Zone 1, or Zone 2 based on the probability of a flammable atmosphere.

• Determine Extent of Zone: Define the boundaries of the hazardous area based on the dispersion characteristics.

·        For Explosive dusts :

• Identify group of combustible dust: Classify the type of dust based on its explosiveness.

• Identification of Sources of release for explosive dust atmospheres: Identify potential sources where combustible dust could accumulate or be released.

• Grade of release: Evaluate the amount and dispersal rate of the combustible dust.

• Identification of Zone: Classify the area as Zone 20, Zone 21, or Zone 22 based on the likelihood of a dust cloud forming.

Challenges:

The Hazardous Area Classification (HAC) study for UPL's MAP WG plant encountered several challenges. First, accurately finding and assessing spots where flammable liquids, vapors, and dust could leak required careful investigation and detailed surveys of the site. Second, accurately calculating how quickly these substances might leak and understanding how they spread needed advanced calculations and careful analysis of data to predict their behavior in different situations. Additionally, dealing with differences in how well air moves through different parts of the plant was a challenge because the flow of air and how well systems work can change a lot. Lastly, managing the difficulty of deciding which parts of the plant might have dust that could explode needed special knowledge of dust types, how they can explode, and the best ways to make sure the plant stays safe.

Recommendations:

To ensure safety at UPL's MAP WG plant, several key measures are recommended include maintaining continuous valve connectivity with PJDCs during operation, defining clear SOPs for blower alarms, and monitoring air pulsation in PJDCs. Implementing preventive maintenance schedules for critical equipment, adhering to hot work guidelines, and reviewing hazardous area classifications are crucial. Ensuring equipment cleanliness, adequate lighting coverage, and safe handling of hazardous materials further enhance safety protocols.

Conclusion:

The Hazardous Area Classification study conducted for UPL's MAP WG plant successfully identified and classified areas prone to flammable liquid/vapor releases and explosive dust atmospheres.