Explosives Hazard Evaluation

Table 15. Fire and Explosion Hazard Evaluation Data...

Baker, W. E., J. J. Kulesz, P. A. Cox, P. S. Westine, and R. A. Strehlow. 1978a. A Short Course on Explosion Hazards Evaluation. Southwest Research Institute. 

The Department of Defense Appropriation Act of 2002 required the DOD to establish a program and protocol for the prioritization of sites containing munitions and explosives of concern (MEC), releases of hazardous substances, and CWM. Each of these aspects has a distinct scoring module within the Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP). These are titled the Explosives Hazard Evaluation (EHE), the Human Health Evaluation (HHE), and the Chemical Hazard Evaluation (CHE), respectively. The MRSPP was finalized through federal rulemaking on October 5,2005, under 32 CFR Part 179. Additional information on the prioritization protocol can be found onUne at http //www.denix.osd.mil. 

Explosibility and Fire Control. As in the case of many other reactive chemicals, the fire and explosion hazards of ethylene oxide are system-dependent. Each system should be evaluated for its particular hazards including start-up, shut-down, and failure modes. Storage of more than a threshold quantity of 5000 lb (- 2300 kg) of the material makes ethylene oxide subject to the provisions of OSHA 29 CER 1910 for "Highly Hazardous Chemicals." Table 15 summarizes relevant fire and explosion data for ethylene oxide, which are at standard temperature and pressure (STP) conditions except where otherwise noted. 

General References Baker, Cox et al., Explosion Hazards and Evaluation, ... 

Pb as the vessel burst pressure in bars. Other sources are Baker Explosion Hazards and Evaluation, Elsevier, 1983, p. 492) and Chemical Propulsion Information Agency Hazards of Chemical Rockets and Propellants Handbook, voT. 1 NTIS, Virginia, May 1972, pp. 2-56, 2-60). 

Baker et. al, 1983, Explosive Hazards and Evaluation, Elsevier, NY ISBN 044-420494-0. 

Baker, W. E. et af 1983. Explosion Hazards and Evaluation. Elsevier, New York, NY. Bodurtha, E. T. 1980. Industrial Explosion Prevention and Protection. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY... 

Prugh, R. W. 1987. Evaluation of unconfined vapor cloud explosion hazards. Int. Conf. on Vapor Cloud Modeling. Cambridge, MA. pp. 713-755, AIChE, New York. 

S. Block W. Leppehneir, Hazards Evaluation of the Explosives Detection... 

The results of previous process hazards evaluations may be used if it can be confirmed that the reviews adequately addressed explosion and fire risks to process plant buildings. ... 

The particular facility under review is a unit producing a reactive material from a high-burning velocity hydrocarbon. The company has established internal guidelines for evaluating occupied buildings that are exposed to identified explosion hazards. 

The index works out at 21 classified as Fight . Ammonia would not normally be considered a dangerously flammable material the danger of an internal explosion in the reactor is the main process hazard. The toxicity of ammonia and the corrosiveness of nitric acid would also need to be considered in a full hazard evaluation. 

Silverstein, J. L. et al., Loss Prev., 1981,14, 78 Nitrobenzene was washed with dilute (5%) sulfuric acid to remove amines, and became contaminated with some tarry emulsion that had formed. After distillation, the hot tarry acidic residue attacked the iron vessel with hydrogen evolution, and an explosion eventually occurred. It was later found that addition of the nitrobenzene to the diluted acid did not give emulsions, while the reversed addition did. A final wash with sodium carbonate solution was added to the process [1]. During hazard evaluation of a continuous adiabatic process for manufacture of nitrobenzene, it was found that the latter with 85% sulfuric acid gave a violent exotherm above 200° C, and with 69% acid a mild exotherm at 150- 170°C [2],... 

Figure 6-6 Flammability diagram for methane at an initial temperature and pressure of 25°C and 1 atm. Source C. V. Mashuga and D. A. Crowl, Application of the Flammability Diagram for Evaluation of Fire and Explosion Hazards of Flammable Vapors, Process Safety Progress (1998), 17(3) 176-183.

Richard W. Prugh, Evaluation of Unconfined Vapor Cloud Explosion Hazards, International Conference on Vapor Cloud Modeling (New York American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1987), p. 713. 

Prugh, Evaluation of Unconfined Vapor Cloud Explosion Hazards, p. 714. 

King, P. V., and A. H. Lasseigne, "Hazard Classification of Explosives for Transportation Evaluation Test Methods, Hazard Evaluation, Research, and Engineering," Report No. TSA-20-72-5, prepared for U. S. Dept, of Transportation (1972) (available from NTIS, Springfield, VA). 

Also indices such as the Dow Fire and Explosion Hazard Index and the Mond Index have been suggested to measure the degree of inherent SHE of a process. Rushton et al. (1994) pointed out that these indices can be used for the assessment of existing plants or at the detailed design stages. They require detailed plant specifications such as the plot plan, equipment sizes, material inventories and flows. Checklists, interaction matrices, Hazop and other hazard identification tools are also usable for the evaluation, because all hazards must be identified and their potential consequences must be understood. E.g. Hazop can be used in different stages of process design but in restricted mode. A complete Hazop-study requires final process plans with flow sheets and PIDs. 

---