Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
(OP)
Hi,
I am doing a Hazardous Area Classification for a site that uses Potassium Amyl Xanthate (PAX or KAX). I have the MSDS sheet, but I can't determine which NFPA Group it should be listed in. I assume Group D, but I'd like to verify. I don't have NFPA 325, and it is no longer available. Could someone with this standard take a look for me and see if it is in there?
Thanks
Alan
I am doing a Hazardous Area Classification for a site that uses Potassium Amyl Xanthate (PAX or KAX). I have the MSDS sheet, but I can't determine which NFPA Group it should be listed in. I assume Group D, but I'd like to verify. I don't have NFPA 325, and it is no longer available. Could someone with this standard take a look for me and see if it is in there?
Thanks
Alan





RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
Your material sounds challenging. We need more data.
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
The material is supplied in powder form, but it is dissolved in water for the process. I am only concerned about it when it is a liquid. It seems to be relatively safe unless it is heated, in which case it gives off carbon disulphide vapors which are highly flammable.
It is hard to get flashpoint data for the liquid in its normal state, but carbon disulphide has a flashpoint of about -30C.
I can't find out how much you have to heat the liquid to get the vapors.
Since the vapors are not normally present, can I just go with Div 2 for the whole area?
As you say - challenging.
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
NFPA 497 generally covers the old NFPA 325 document for the materials of interest.
From NFPA 497[2004], Table 4.4.2 Note h:
Carbon disulfide is what I call a "maverick." Technically, it has no "Group" in the conventional NEC Division classification system. It is Group IIC in the Zone system. That puts it in the same category as acetylene. With respect to MIE, MIC and MESG, it's even worse than acetylene. It does have a significantly lower %UFL but that's about it.
The open question in my mind at the moment is, "Is it possible for the liquid to be heated to vaporization during the process under unusual but not necessarily upset conditions?" It is important to recognize that "normal" is not defined with respect to processes in the NEC and "normal" does not necessarily mean "often" or even "common."
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
Is the liquid form the final product form??
If so shouldn't there be a msds for it???
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
rbalex, thanks for your information. The question I am wrestling with is whether to assume that carbon disulphide might be generated, or just to ignore it and deal only with the KAX 51 itself. Under "normal" conditions, there will be no carbon disulphide. And not knowing at what temperature KAX has to be heated to in order to generate CS2 is a concern. If the temp is not normally occurring in a process plant (say above 50C) then I can assume that there will be no CS2 even if there is a KAX leak. But if CS2 is generated at "normal" temperatures found in a plant, (say a hot motor or a light bulb globe) then I have a problem.
Agreed?
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
Again from NFPA 497 [2004]:
My concerns would be how leaks may occur and whether those leaks may readily vaporize. If they are a common maintenance issue, then you may need to consider Division 1. If not, Division 2 would probably be acceptable. However, from the Table 4.4.2 note I cited earlier, I'd review a CS2 MDS and see what "...safeguards beyond those required for any of the above groups" just might be. This is nasty stuff we're taking about; with issues well beyond electrical area classification.
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
I am traveling but everything Rbalex is telling you is true. I also have never had experience with CS2 but I havee though about it.
I have a reference to a peer reviewed article that was published in Chemical Engineering News in which one can calculate the evaporative flux of a liquid spill and following the Ideal Gas Law, estimate the required volume/area of mechanical ventilation to maintain the atmosphere < 25% LFL. As you are probably aware, CS2 has a low LFL value and a broad flammable range.
If someone can explain to me how to post a Adobe file of the paper, I'll be happy to share it with you.
I also am going to post the question on my alumni listserve to see if any of the graduates of my university have dealt with this material.
I don't know if this helps solve of your problems. It sounds like from an instrumentation or controls perspective, Z purge may be your only option.
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
In the entry pane below(Step 3 Attachment, right-hand side)you can upload your file and then "paste" a reference to it in your message.
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
But since CS2 has a flashpoint of -30C, and an LEL of 1.25%, would not any vapors that are given off immediately ignite and burn off, without doing much harm? It seems to me it would be impossible to collect CS2 in sufficient quantities to cause a fire or explosion
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
If any personnel are in that area, you are looking at burn victims. I don't have enough data to make an injury assessment - however, if you end up with partial depth or full depth burns over 9% of the human body, you should consider permanent skin damage and extended, long term, painful treatment.
You are dealing with a pretty nasty manufacturing by-product that offers little sympathy to anyone exposed to under fire exposure. A high degree of engineering control is warranted with CS2. Look at the vapor pressure - its damn near 2X that of acetone.
http://www.sciencestuff.com/msds/C1462.html
This degree of volatilty confirms to me why electrical equipment based on separation gaps for flame quenching verified using MESG won't work using more conventional methods of hazardous(classified) location electrical equipment.
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
I would caution though that, while CS2 has terribly volatile fire properties, you can't count on it simply "burning off" as it is generated. Both its vapor density (2.6) and it AIT (90C) would lead me to believe that it would "cloud" until, as Stookyfpe said, it found "...any source of ignition with sufficent [sic] energy..." Given its exceptionally low MIE/MIC, it wouldn't take much, but it would still probably take more than ambient temperature. In other words it would tend to collect until it found an ignition source. THEN the rapid and violent fire Stookyfpe described would occur.
Something else to consider: it is very toxic. This isn't particularly unusual; most HVLs are toxic well below their LEL. From the MSDS Stookyfpe provided, it is 4ppm for CS2.
I would definitely want to understand the process and its safety mitigation far beyond the electrical area classification. I'd recommend having a serious "sit down" with the process, safety and operations management as a minimum.
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
http://en.
I'm still looking. Sorry I have a messy external hard drive. You can substitute CS2 empirical data for hydrazine and work the LFL calcs using LaChateliers equation.
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
Since I'm an electrical engineer and not a true fire protection specialist, my own calculation skills are pretty much limited to that of the occasional fugitive emission for leaky valves and seals.
I was always sure "spills" had similar analytical tools but we tended to ignore the incidental ones and larger ones were considered "...catastrophes such as well blowouts or process vessel ruptures. Such extreme conditions require emergency measures at the time of occurrence." [API RP 500 Section 2.2.1.b] I was an author/editor of the three previous RP 500 editions. I'm no longer on the technical committee, but I know they are gearing up for some major revisions this time.
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
As I fire protection engineer I always have a copy of API RP 500 on my shelf as I find it offers far more guidance that the NEC. I understand the NEC is the adopted code - however, RP 500 sure gives some really helpful options and beneficial information when dealing with hazardous locations. Its nice to know that I have helped an author of a very useful RP.
Let me know if you need anything else.
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
Alan
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
I am using IFM sensors IGC206 (24VDC) in Class I Div. 2 area.
I'm using double ended cord-set with built-in LED to connect these sensors to PLC card. The PLC is in non-hazardous area.
May I consider this system as a Nonincendive System or should I use other measures (IS barriers)?
Thanks.
Boris.
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
Alan
RE: Hazard Classification of PAX (KAX)
That's a pretty freaky product. I went and searched for the product and its empirical formula - I now see how the CS2 is formed.
You get a star for one of the more interesting problems.