Semantics of "Area Classification" and who should determined Areas

Status
Not open for further replies.
HAZLOC

HAZLOC

rbalex said:
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.

I have said before, "Hazardous location classification is not rocket science".It is definitely a collaborative activity, but all that is actually needed is the process flow diagrams, flow stream material balances and an accurate plot plan. You often don't even need that much for installations within the scopes of Articles 511 to 516. ​
Click to expand...

rbalex, "Curious..." infancy by OP was the beginning of this thread. I want to ask a question rather than adhere to a statement originally posted without proper syntactically corrected text, that is a question not a statement in the beginning OP addition to this Hazardous Portion.

In relation to "...(API RP 500 and 505)..." and MAOP of equipment essentially utility gas compression, new and/or rebuilt by qualified OEM technicians, how does the API view acceptance of their published diagram's when over pressurization boundaries both process and venting of maximum allowable operating target limits and the final rule placed in federal register entry for a change when reviewed on 1 year cycles "Incoroporation By Reference" as compared compared to 3 year cycles by industry committees ? Or better still how does your committee ascertain your published approved wording and reference diagrams? (other than marking syntax by (new, revised, of deleted) marking as explained in the beginning of the publication?)

Thank You So Much. I think that was 3 questions, please accept any grammatical challenges.
 
Last edited:
There is a 2014 IEEE PCIC paper "Electrical Hazardous Area Classification Design as a Basis for Safer Operations" that discusses the increased role that the hazardous area classification drawings can play beyond just for electrical installations. I would say that this paper is more of an acknowledgment to how some in the industry are already using their hazardous area classification documents as opposed to it being a brand new idea.

In that regard, the methodology and standards may still belong to the "Electrical" folks but if the API and the industry come to formally identify these documents as the basis for their siting and safe work, we will likely start seeing other disciplines getting engaged.
 
nec_addicted said:
rbalex, "Curious..." infancy by OP was the beginning of this thread. I want to ask a question rather than adhere to a statement originally posted without proper syntactically corrected text, that is a question not a statement in the beginning OP addition to this Hazardous Portion.

In relation to "...(API RP 500 and 505)..." and MAOP of equipment essentially utility gas compression, new and/or rebuilt by qualified OEM technicians, how does the API view acceptance of their published diagram's when over pressurization boundaries both process and venting of maximum allowable operating target limits and the final rule placed in federal register entry for a change when reviewed on 1 year cycles "Incoroporation By Reference" as compared compared to 3 year cycles by industry committees ? Or better still how does your committee ascertain your published approved wording and reference diagrams? (other than marking syntax by (new, revised, of deleted) marking as explained in the beginning of the publication?)

Thank You So Much. I think that was 3 questions, please accept any grammatical challenges.
Click to expand...

The question of MAOP quoted above from a CFR standpoint pasted in from resources below, is an example in timeline I was hoping to obtain, from a knowledgeable source related to NFPA committee eccentric past relevance to understand how reference exhibits appear in each update to NFPA 70.
Determining Class Location
Building Count, Clustering,
Boundaries
MAOP review
• "In addition, 49 CFR 192.619(a)(3) allows an operator
to establish an MAOP based upon the 5‐year window
for older systems prior to July 1, 1970. Once that has
been established and documented and a class
location study is performed resulting in a class
location change from what it was on July 1, 1970,
does the operator have to incorporate a class
location factor for revision of the MAOP established
by the 5‐year window? Our contention is that the
operator does not."

MAOP review
• If a class location study identifies a pipeline segment
with a hoop stress corresponding to an established
MAOP that is not commensurate with the present
class location, the operator must confirm or revise
the MAOP of the pipeline segment using one of the
three methods in § 192.611(a). Operators must use
all the applicable class location factors wherever called for in each of these methods.

Here is where an Architect would use building codes to establish safe areas for blowout panels when over pressurization was a subject of an upgrade. However this one answer hinges on a 5 year cycle.

It turns out my understanding is NFPA has a remedy to view any of their proposed section in the form of public industry may "view only" interested parties request for exact code and article or in my case exhibits that are changes to hazardous area classification boundaries. The release of Tentative Interim Agreements (TIA's) library during the approval cycle location is still unclear to this caller.

That much information obtained today in a chat log with NFPA. When the caller asked about NFPA 70 of course the 3 year revision recently out had zero proposals from industry at this time.

That is sort of the long and short of my curious question's?

Optionally my centrist API 500 and API 505 is a different or another field of research.

Occasionally hard to satisfy NFPA because of standard business operation rules and / or a standard statement at their site sets the threshold higher than I can hope to obtain when using a research technique I would hope to crack. Primarily to obtain a document that may be available by filling out a form needs to include two active members on the committee signatory approval before the form is reviewed for context. At least that is a method and considerably a lot longer process.
 
Hazardous Classifications 49 CFR 192.619

Hazardous Classifications 49 CFR 192.619

Continuation of above. If one was to google above CFR one would get listings from Federal Transportation Board and Cornell University Law.

There you would be able to surmise the transportation aspects of federal regulations for delivery of gas via pipeline and also find links to the federal register proposed Interim Agreements for looking over and / or commenting on industry documents under MAOP jurisdictions.

It appears only to this simple transparent minded process other integral aspects to governing public safety that other organizations would adopt methods easier to understand.

More is required for actually operating a pipeline and MAOP rule making based on transportation of hazardous gas also requires more than a few material balance flow sheets.This is where FERC process takes over plot plans and clustering of buildings and/or classification of boundaries from public buildings separation.

So in essence it is a "..collaborative..."( as previously) by others mentioned in decision process for both changes and "...who should be recognized..." as the reviewer of Electrical Hazardous Location documents and drawings.
 
Last edited:
MrJLH said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think everyone available should be consulted, including process.

Most of the newer standards concur - they're now calling risk analysis a multidisciplinary activity, which makes sense:

"4.4 Competence of Personnel
The area classification should be carried out by those who understand the relevance and
significance of the properties of the flammable substances, principles of gas/vapour
dispersion and those who are familiar with the process and the equipment. It may be
beneficial for other engineering disciplines, e.g. electrical and mechanical engineers, and
personnel with specific responsibility for safety to be part of and have an input to the area
classification process. The competency of the person shall be relevant to the nature of the
plant and methodology used for carrying out the area classification. Appropriate continuing
education or training should be undertaken by personnel on a regular basis where required."

[Yes, OK, that's an IEC standard. All's fair in war and area classification!]

If they're not available - well, you do your best. It may end up being a bit conservative, but c'est la vie.

If it gets to the point where you're no longer confident you have a defensible analysis, then you have to pull in the process guys/gals, or whoever else is needed to make it work.

However, I also agree with Bob - it's not rocket science. The methodologies are well documented.

Just my $0.0154195 $USD.
 
MrJLH said:
Curious on opinions of of what area classification drawings should be called for a petrochemical facility :

Hazardous Area Classification Drawings
or
Electrical Area Classification Drawings
or other titles.

Curious on other opinions on who should determine the extent of the hazardous area(s).
Electrical Engineer
or
Area Process Engineer

Thanks
Click to expand...

I prefer Hazardous Area Classification, then Plan at Grade, Plan at T.O.S. Elev. X’-Y”, Elevation Looking South, etc.

It is the hazardous area that makes it electrically classified. Hazardous Area is more intuitive to someone who is not familiar with the terminology. It tells them, “hey, this area can be dangerous”.

I work for a medium sized EPC Engineering firm, and it is always an Instrument or Electrical engineer that develops the area classification. With that said, the electrical engineer must be familiar with the process, and the potential leak sources, so they must work with Process engineers and Pipers in the development of the HAC.

Respectfully,

Christopher D. Staker, PE
Atlanta, GA
 
Didn't read the whole thread but this is a common issue we have at our office. Project Manager or Project Engineer points to electrical to develop the Area Class plans without input from Process engineers. Our stance, as an electrical group, is that the electrical engineers/designers develop the area class drawings based off a Hazardous Area Classification report produced by the Process Engineers.
 
I work in water and wastewater as well. I am constantly surprised with the lack of awareness of and understanding of area classification. Many of the process engineers and equipment suppliers I work with regularly have zero knowledge of the applicable codes and requirements. I usually classify areas on electrical plans because nobody else will tackle it.

Really it's an overall lack of knowledge of building codes and NFPA codes altogether throughout the industry. I used to work on architectural projects and code knowledge was required. In this industry, it's an exception instead of the rule. Just last week I was explaining the difference between 250.66 and 250.122 to a PE with 25 years of experience in water and wastewater. :eek:hmy:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top