DAILY Ex - 21 SEPTEMBER 2026

⚡ DAILY Ex - 21 SEPTEMBER 2026

Explosion protection | Operational Ex | Global watch

Today’s mix: IECEx → installation practice → combustible dust research → incident learning → Operations.

⸻

▶️ IECEx - BEIJING MEETINGS COMPLETED

The 2026 IECEx Annual Meetings concluded in Beijing on Friday after a full week covering assessor training, Ex Service Facilities, ExTAG, Personnel Competence, the Industrial Symposium and the Ex Management Committee.

This structure itself tells an important story. IECEx is not simply about getting an equipment certificate.

Equipment → manufacturer quality → installation → service facilities → personnel competence → inspection → repair

All of these can influence whether the original Ex protection is maintained.

Operational Ex:

When Head of Operations asks “Is it IECEx certified?”, perhaps the second question should be: “And what has happened to it since it left the manufacturer?”

https://www.iecex.com/resources-and-news/meeting-and-events/2026-annual-meetings-of-the-iecex-system/?utm

⸻

▶️ CURRENT INDUSTRY PRACTICE - IEC 60079-14 MOVES INTO IMPLEMENTATION

The September issue of Hazardex highlights the UK National Annex to BS EN IEC 60079-14:2024, focusing on what designers, installers and inspectors need to consider when applying the latest installation requirements. The same issue gives considerable attention to maintenance, hydrogen, human factors and DSEAR/ATEX decision-making.

Why it matters operationally: A new installation standard does not automatically change an existing plant overnight.

But it should trigger a controlled question: Standard change → gap review → affected specifications/procedures → projects/modifications → inspection practice → competence

Simply updating the PDF in the engineering library achieves very little.

⸻

▶️ NEW RESEARCH - WOOD-PELLET DUST IS NOT ONE CONSTANT HAZARD

A September 2026 Fire Safety Journal study investigated the explosion characteristics of wood-pellet dust.

Among the findings: decreasing particle size increased Kmax and Pmax, while particle size also influenced MIE and MEC. Importantly, dust produced by different generation methods showed different explosion behaviour.

Operational Ex lesson:

Do not assume: “We tested this material five years ago, therefore we know its explosion characteristics.” Grinding, crushing, drying, screening, recycling or changing suppliers can alter the dust presented to the process.

Same product name ≠ necessarily same explosion behaviour.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379711226001396?utm

⸻

▶️ RESEARCH WATCH - EVEN MIE TESTING HAS PRACTICAL VARIABLES

A forthcoming Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries paper examines particle adhesion during Minimum Ignition Energy testing and how cleaning/removal techniques can affect particle mass, size distribution and the resulting MIE determination.

This sounds like a laboratory issue. It becomes an Operations issue when an electrostatic-risk assessment says: “MIE = X mJ.”

Before treating one number as absolute, understand the sample, test method and uncertainty behind it.

Data → engineering interpretation → operational limit.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950423026001932?utm⁠

⸻

▶️ INCIDENT LEARNING - DIDION MILLING

Historical incident / current learning material

The US Chemical Safety Board continues to use the fatal Didion Milling combustible-dust explosion as training material. Five workers died and 14 were injured in the 2017 incident. The CSB released a dedicated safety video earlier this year.

One lesson remains highly relevant: Dust accumulation is not simply a housekeeping KPI. It can represent stored fuel for a secondary explosion.

For Head of Operations: Finding dust → determine why it is escaping → control the release → remove accumulation safely → verify housekeeping frequency → check whether HAC assumptions remain valid.

Cleaning without understanding the source is not necessarily closing the barrier failure.

https://www.csb.gov/recommendations/combustible-dust-investigations/?utm

⸻

▶️ OPERATIONAL Ex USE CASE - THE LARGER PUMP

Production needs more throughput. Engineering proposes replacing a pump with a larger unit.

Same liquid.

Same piping.

Same hazardous area.

Same tank.

It looks like a normal equipment upgrade. But increased flow velocity can change electrostatic charging, residence time, turbulence, filling behaviour and potentially release conditions.

The correct questions there are many like: “Is the new pump ATEX/IECEx suitable?” and “Does the new operating condition remain inside the explosion-protection assumptions of the process?”

Pump change → process parameters → electrostatic assessment → HAC/ignition-risk check → MoC → verification → authorization.

That is Operational Ex.

⸻

▶️ GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE - CLOSE THE LOOP AFTER REPAIR

Evergreen practice

An Ex motor returns from repair. The workshop documentation looks correct. That still should not automatically mean: INSTALL → START.

A stronger return-to-service chain is: Repair scope → repair evidence → certificate/original design reference → site inspection → correct installation → protection-system checks → documentation updated → authorization → START

The repair shop controls the repair. The operator controls return to service.

⸻

▶️ TODAY’S Ex QUESTION

Choose one Ex defect currently marked “closed” in your plant.

Can you demonstrate that: the defect was corrected → the Ex integrity was restored → the work was verified → the evidence was recorded → the equipment was formally returned to service?

If you can only demonstrate that the work order was closed, you may have closed an administrative action. Not necessarily the Ex risk.