I have been mulling over how to respond to this and several of your other recent posts. It took me a while to realize you are in Canada - let me be clear, that's just fine.They can be called "Hazardous Area Classification Drawings", "Electrical Area Classification Drawings", or anything similar. I prefer "Area Classification" because new standards recognize that non-electrical equipment can cause ignitions.
Most guidance on risk analysis says that such activities are best done with a multidisciplinary team (electrical, mechanical, HVAC, process, as appropriate), led by someone with appropriate experience. This (obviously) applies to area classification, but is (equally obviously) not always practical.
Area classification is generally the owner's responsibility.
I agree EEs are the ones often saddled with the responsibility of the area classification; I also agree they're not necessarily the best qualified.
My kind of issue is why should the electrical engineer bear the responsibility and hold the liability of determining the hazardous area class of a facility. Is it not the process engineers who have the most familiarity with the process equipment and process conditions.
I feel like when I see area class drawings that were/are done by our EPC's all that was done was copy and paste the application of the API figures without any actual true understanding of the process and what the actual literature of API says in determineing the extent of the areas.
I have attempted to revise the vernacular at this facility to refer to it as a Hazardous Area Classification as opposed to an EAC specifically for the purpose of the increased role that the documents play in our facility's risk analysis. The documents are used much beyond their scope and this is a relatively common practice in the petrochemical industry. In an API audit, an auditor asked me if there were any classified locations that extended into roadways where there is unregulated vehicular traffic. I started my explanation with "that is outside the scope of API RP 500 as it is only for determining the classification of locations for the purpose of installation of electrical equipment. But with that in mind, I will entertain the intent of your question..."
A Process Engineer can go from start to finish in developing a Hazardous Area Classification document with no assistance from myself, an Electrical Engineer. Whereas, I would not be able to do 90% of the work without the assistance of the Process Engineer's input. I could just draw a big box along the plot limits and call everything Class I Division 2 Groups B,C,D and be done with it (except for sumps, inadequately ventilated locations, etc.).
When changes are made to the Process, they don't always tell the Electrical folks to update the Area Classification. This facility has a very poor track record of that. It is mostly due to a generalized lack of understanding for Area Classification development among Process Engineers and what changes could result in an update to the documents.
There are also some folks who know enough to be a problem but not enough to understand nuance. Mostly people who carry the "large ignition source = unclassified so we can install general purpose equipment" notion.
People drive through Division 2 daily without issue. See Figure 514.3.
I was in a refinery once where the whole plant except for a few buildings was division 2 except for the parts that were division 1. It had some interesting quirks though.
They had smoking areas set up that were delineated by yellow lines on the floor. The area inside the yellow rectangle was an unclassified smoking area but outside the yellow rectangle was division 2.
They also had a number of regular motor vehicles I saw driving around the plant, even though allegedly it was division 2. I asked about that because it seemed to me a car was a pretty likely source of ignition and was told they had gotten special permits from the provincial government to have motor vehicles without catalytic converters so they were safe to drive in the division 2 areas. I never really bought into this idea, but that was what they told me.
Considering potential spillage, it could even be considered Division 1 - but historic experience has shown it's no big deal.I know. But how is that "safe"?
People drive through Division 2 daily without issue. See Figure 514.3.
Odds are I've done work for your operation.Our entire company and all of the refineries around here except one have gone to a "no smoking in this facility, or anywhere on our property." Smokers have to drive a couple miles down the road for their smoke breaks. One of the refineries I hear still has their "smoke shacks" which are basically as you described: locations outside the hazardous area classification where they don't need to have a 4-way monitor and a hot work permit to smoke. I would love to have seen if anyone ever filled out a hot work permit to light up a cig in the middle of a process unit though...
For the vehicles without catalytic converters... did anyone point out that there are plenty other sources of ignition on a vehicle? Granted, I was at another one of my company's facilities and we were literally driving down a road with large process pumps not more than 10 feet from the van I was riding in. It was a different level of risk acceptance but their facility was a lot more "cramped" in terms of layout.
I have attempted to revise the vernacular at this facility to refer to it as a Hazardous Area Classification as opposed to an EAC specifically for the purpose of the increased role that the documents play in our facility's risk analysis. The documents are used much beyond their scope and this is a relatively common practice in the petrochemical industry. In an API audit, an auditor asked me if there were any classified locations that extended into roadways where there is unregulated vehicular traffic. I started my explanation with "that is outside the scope of API RP 500 as it is only for determining the classification of locations for the purpose of installation of electrical equipment. But with that in mind, I will entertain the intent of your question..."
A Process Engineer can go from start to finish in developing a Hazardous Area Classification document with no assistance from myself, an Electrical Engineer. Whereas, I would not be able to do 90% of the work without the assistance of the Process Engineer's input. I could just draw a big box along the plot limits and call everything Class I Division 2 Groups B,C,D and be done with it (except for sumps, inadequately ventilated locations, etc.).
When changes are made to the Process, they don't always tell the Electrical folks to update the Area Classification. This facility has a very poor track record of that. It is mostly due to a generalized lack of understanding for Area Classification development among Process Engineers and what changes could result in an update to the documents.
There are also some folks who know enough to be a problem but not enough to understand nuance. Mostly people who carry the "large ignition source = unclassified so we can install general purpose equipment" notion.
I have served on three national level "HazLoc" Technical Committees. Almost without exception, the membership was all "electrical", the lone exception was the API Subcommittee on Electrical Equipment (API RP 500 and 505) where a few members were "mechanical" representing some motor interests.Yep that was the point I'm curious about what everyone on the forum thought. Yeah I can draw out a plant and put a bubble around the equipment, but it is the process engineering who have the technical knowledge and expertise of what goes on with the units.