0260-9576/05/$17.63 + 0.
00
Fire on an electrostatic paint line
Process description
In order to improve the performance of the metal
anodes used in an electrochemical process, they were
given a thin surface coating of a mixture of precious
metals (platinum and rhodium). This was achieved by
mixing metal salts with a flammable hydrocarbon
solvent to produce a ‘paint’, which was applied to the
anodes by spray painting. In order to minimise losses
of the very expensive ‘paint’, an electrostatic painting
process was used. In this the spray nozzle was given a
high voltage electrostatic charge, which was transferred
to the spray particles. In order to attract the paint
particles, the anode to be painted was given the opposite
charge to the spray head. The gap between the spray
head and the anodes was designed to be sufficient to
prevent an electrostatic discharge.
The anodes were mounted onto jigs fixed to a
conveyer, which transferred them past the spray
heads at a preset speed.
During design the whole process was subjected to a
Hazard Study. During the study it was concluded that
the fire risk was low, since:
• the hydrocarbon solvent was being used below its
flash point;
• only a limited amount of ‘paint’, less than five litres,
was present in the rig at any one time.
On this basis, no fixed fire protection equipment
was provided although a number of dry powder
extinguishers were provided in the building.
The incident
Shortly after starting the spray line the operator noticed
a fire. The line was stopped, the site fire and security
staff were called and attempts were made to extinguish
the fire with a portable dry powder extinguisher.
Although this subdued the fire it re-ignited immediately.
On arrival at the scene the fire/security staff isolated the
electrical supplies and extinguished the fire with a hand-
held foam extinguisher.
LOSS PREVENTION BULLETIN 181
29
 Institution of Chemical Engineers 2005
No staff were injured, and damage was limited to the
spray line.
However this was a one-off facility. No other
facilities were known to be available anywhere else in
the world for refurbishing the anodes, which were used
in a number of other plants with a turnover well in
excess of £ 100 million per annum. Following a great
deal of effort the line was rebuilt and back on line before
the stock of refurbished anodes was exhausted.
Investigation
It quickly became clear that the paint at the spray heads
had initially ignited. This small fire had then melted the
plastic pipes used to convey the paint from the supply
tank to the spray heads and resulted in the whole paint
inventory becoming involved in the fire. Although the
dry powder had subdued the fire, the hot metal surfaces
had re-ignited it.
Why had the spray ignited? More detailed
investigation showed that parts of the conveyer were
worn and some of the jigs used to hold the anodes were
distorted. This had allowed the anodes to become too
close to the spray head, leading to sparking.
The assumption that handling the solvent above its
flash point made the process safe was incorrect. The fine
spray produced in the process was capable of ignition,
even by the very low energy of the electrostatic
charge device.
Corrective action
• During restatement of the process, detailed checks
were made on the alignment of the conveyer and
of the jigs.
• The Hazard Study was reconvened which
recommended:
䊊 more frequent checks on conveyer wear and
alignment;
䊊 fitting of fire detectors, both smoke and IR to the
spray rig coupled to a shutdown system to stop
the paint spray;
䊊 automatic fire extinguishers, Halon, fitted in the
spray booth (since replaced with a non CFC
extinguisher);
䊊 although plastic components had to be retained to
provide electrical isolation, an isolation valve,
linked to the shutdown system, was installed
below the paint supply.
LOSS PREVENTION BULLETIN 181
30
• The whole process was reviewed to assess business
interruption risks.
• An inherently safe approach involving changing
the process to use a non-flammable solvent was
considered. However such a change would have
required extensive product development and
retesting over several years and was deemed
impracticable.