An OTECSA guide restates practical anti-static controls for flammable-liquid and powder handling, with hard numbers on flow velocity and FIBC selection. [S1]
Specifying engineers writing P&IDs, hazardous-area equipment specs, or PPE/dress standards need a defensible baseline of static-control measures, because ignition-source selection under ATEX/IECEx requires documented engineering practice. The OTECSA post supplies concrete design values: 1 m/s for low-conductivity flammable liquids, 3 m/s for higher conductivity, earth-continuity checks at least annually, and FIBC type selection per IEC 61340-4-4. A spec that omits these numbers is exposed to challenge during HAZOP and DSEAR/ATEX conformity review. [S1]
What the guidance sets out
OTECSA's article, titled 'Static Discharge Ignition Risk: A Hidden Threat in Processes Part 2', treats static controls for processes as essential wherever flammable liquids or powders are handled, framing electrostatic discharge as a credible ignition source rather than a nuisance shock. [S1]
The post credits the HSE with recognising electrostatic discharge sparks as a primary ignition source in hazardous areas, and lists pumping, filling, spraying, and powder transfer as charge-generating activities to be controlled at the equipment and procedural level. [S1]
Design numbers and named standards
Flow-velocity limits are stated explicitly: 1 m/s maximum for flammable liquids with conductivity up to 50 pS/m where a second phase may be present, and 3 m/s maximum for flammable liquids with higher conductivity. [S1]
FIBC type selection (A, B, C, or D) is to be carried out in line with IEC 61340-4-4, the only formal standard referenced in the article. [S1]
Splash-filling controls call for a dip leg with an anti-siphon hole or an inlet pipe angled against the tank wall to limit turbulence and static build-up. [S1]
For powder addition where solids cannot be charged first, the article specifies a fall height kept to a minimum and a charge rate below 1 kg/s. [S1]
What it means for anti-static equipment specifications
The article treats earthing, bonding, and dip-leg geometry as baseline engineering practice, not optional extras, and pairs them with personnel-side controls: anti-static footwear with periodic test stations or scheduled replacement, plus anti-static clothing and flooring. [S1]
For powder handling, non-conductive plastic scoops, chutes, and bags are flagged as unacceptable; conductive plastics or non-sparking metallic alternatives are the named substitutes. [S1]
Portable containers require dedicated bonding clips and wires tied into the site's regular earthing test regime, so any spec covering decanting or drum transfer needs to define the bond type and test interval rather than leaving it to the operator. [S1]
How to check the primary source
The article is dated 2025-09-03 on otecsaconsulting.com and is published as Part 2 of a static-controls series, so the companion Part 1 should be reviewed for context on charge-generation mechanisms before the controls are lifted into a specification. [S1]
Cross-reference the stated 1 m/s and 3 m/s velocity limits, the annual earth-continuity interval, and the IEC 61340-4-4 FIBC classification against the current editions of CENELEC/TR 50404, NFPA 77, and IEC 60079-32-1 before committing the values to a hazardous-area design dossier. [S1]
Primary notice: Industry news.
Product encyclopedia: Anti-Static Equipment.