Agrochemical manufacturing combines two things that rarely sit together comfortably: acutely toxic active ingredients, and formulation and packing operations that involve a great deal of material handling. The active is usually present in small quantities and demands high containment. The formulated product is present in large quantities and demands throughput. Designing a plant that serves both is the core engineering challenge.

Projex Solutions provides engineering design, process safety studies and project delivery for agrochemical and crop protection manufacturers, covering active ingredient production, formulation, and filling and packing operations.

What makes this work different

Toxicity, not just flammability, drives the design. Much of process safety engineering is oriented around fire and explosion. Here the dominant hazard is frequently acute toxicity, which changes the emphasis to containment, ventilation, personal exposure control and emergency response.

COMAH applies on toxic thresholds. Toxic substance thresholds bring many agrochemical sites into COMAH scope independently of any flammable inventory, and the safety report has to address toxic release scenarios and their off-site consequences.

Containment and occupational exposure. Handling of actives requires containment strategy, exposure banding and verification, in an environment that also has to be cleanable between campaigns to avoid cross-contamination.

Formulation brings solvent and dust. Emulsifiable concentrates bring flammable solvent; wettable powders and granules bring combustible dust. Both fall under DSEAR alongside the toxic hazard.

Effluent and environmental controls are demanding. Wash-down, cleaning between campaigns and packaging waste all carry contamination, with treatment and disposal falling under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (as amended).

Product regulation sits alongside plant regulation. GB Plant Protection Products and Biocidal Products regimes, both administered by HSE, govern the product. They do not govern the plant, but they shape what the plant has to be able to demonstrate.

Where we help

  • Containment design for active handling, with exposure banding and verification planning
  • HAZOP and HAZID facilitation with toxic release scenarios properly represented
  • COMAH support, including engineering input to safety report production and revision
  • DSEAR assessment and hazardous area classification for solvent and dust hazards
  • Dust explosion protection design for powder and granule operations
  • Ventilation and LEV design where exposure control is the governing requirement
  • Cleaning, changeover and cross-contamination control design between campaigns
  • Effluent treatment and environmental permit support
  • Feasibility, FEED, detailed design and EPCM delivery under ISO 9001:2015

Typical reasons clients get in touch

  • A new active is being introduced and containment has to be designed around it
  • COMAH duties apply on toxic thresholds and the engineering case needs building
  • Formulation capacity has to increase without compromising containment
  • Cross-contamination between campaigns is limiting what the plant can run
  • Effluent is constrained by permit and treatment capacity
  • Filling and packing operations need automating or making demonstrably safe

Related

Part of our work across the chemical sector. See also chemical formulation and blending.

Standards and regulations we work to

  • COMAH 2015, frequently triggered on toxic rather than flammable thresholds
  • COSHH 2002, with ACOP L5 (sixth edition, 2013)
  • DSEAR 2002, with ACOP L138 (second edition, 2013), for solvent and dust
  • BS EN IEC 60079-10-1:2021 and BS EN 60079-10-2
  • Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (as amended)
  • PUWER 1998, with ACOP L22 (fourth edition, 2014, amended 2018)
  • GB Plant Protection Products and GB Biocidal Products regimes, both HSE-administered, which govern the product rather than the plant
  • CDM 2015 and ISO 9001:2015

Frequently asked questions

We have very little flammable inventory. Why would COMAH apply?
Because COMAH thresholds cover toxic substances as well as flammable ones, and they are considerably lower. Sites with modest solvent holdings but significant quantities of acutely toxic active ingredient are regularly in scope, and the safety report has to address toxic release and its off-site consequences.

How early should containment be considered for a new active?
At concept. Containment strategy determines equipment selection, room layout, ventilation and cleaning approach, and retrofitting it after the plant is laid out is expensive and rarely as effective.

Cross-contamination is limiting what we can run. Is that fixable?
Often, yes, but usually through design rather than procedure. Dedicated equipment for the most problematic actives, improved cleanability, and airflow and segregation changes tend to deliver more than tightening a cleaning protocol that is already at its practical limit.

Do you handle the effluent side as well?
Yes. Wash-down and campaign changeover produce contaminated effluent, and treatment capacity and permit limits frequently constrain how often the plant can change product.

Can containment be added to an existing formulation plant?
Often, though the cost depends heavily on layout. Where rooms were designed without pressure regime or dedicated airflow in mind, containment becomes a building problem rather than an equipment one.

How do you approach exposure verification?
By designing to a target exposure band and then verifying it by measurement once operating. A containment claim that has never been verified is an intention rather than a control.

Talk to us about your plant. Request a call