I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I istorically, hazardous area classification has been the responsibility of the plant electri cal engi neer In actuality, how- ever, many projects were being designed with minimum input from plant engineering. Most consulting firms would use an ultra-conservative approach with little input from process engineers and no consideration for potential cost savings. The existi ng national standards and guidelines are written t o provide safet y and flexibility of design and are difficult for th e inexperienced engineer to interpret Even for the experienced engineers, this flexibility often leads to different interpretations for similar situations. In 1993 a small group of electrical engineers recognized a need for stan- dardization without compromising safety, and formed a technical committee to address this issue This paper will present the result of the commit- tee’s work as a corporate engineering technical guideline that is currently being used by Eli Lilly and Company. It must be stressed that the purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of facili- ties for Eli Lilly and Company only. It is base d on more than 158 years of engineering and opera- tional experiences, national guidelines, and stan- dards. Other companies may find this article useful in developing their own guidelines for hazardous area classifications; however, Eli Lilly and Com- pany takes no responsibility for their decisions in classifyingareas The guideline is intended to assist in the classification of most (about 90%) hazardous Thzs artzcle appeared zn zts orzgznal i r m a t the 1995 Petroleum and Chemzcal InduJ-try Conference. Hernandez zs chazrman o f the Elz Lzlly Hazardous Area s Tech nzcal Comm zttee Other me mber s z nclude Barry A Bradley, Ronald W. Crooke, Eric B Faulkner, Wzllzam M LewzJ-, Vzet Q Maz, Kenneth A. Mes~zck, ames K Mzles, and Kevzn D Wzlhelm. locations encountered a t this company as de- fined by the Nat ional Electrical Code, and does not cover unique installations The guideline is intended to I I increase consistency from project to project by standardizing the classification approval procedure and the final documentation improve and ensure personnel safety and pre- vent property los s W deliver a facilit y fo r the lowest cost without compromi sing safet y I I speed design I I make f uture changes and revisions e asie r w define involvement of the appropriate indi- viduals needed for the classification process improve communications of hazardous loca- tions to personnel by providing clear refer- ence s and docume nts In the past, hazardous are a classificat ions were done in a variety of ways, often resultin g in bad ex- periences, such as improper classifications and finger-pointing among the design team. At our company, a design team for a project is usually compos ed o f an engineer of each discipli ne (chemi- cal, electrical , proc ess control, mechanical, struc- tural) all led by a project engineer who usually has no electrical background and is mostly focused on budget and schedule. This team operates from a central location and is usu ally not in tune with in- dividual plant operations The same team format existed at th e consulting firm with even less plant operations experience Due to personnel turnover at the company and at the consulting firm, there were communication gaps that led to errors in clas- sification. Because of the ultra-conservative nature of the classifications, we have experienced no physical lo sse s or injuries due to improper classifi - cation. The only losses experienced were financial, due to t he exces siv e cost of equip ment and the dif- ficulty of designing to satisfy restrictive classifi- cation requirements. Due t o the guideline, several project s have pro- gressed smoothly throughout the design and con- IFFFlndosfry App/imfi ons Mugazi ne Murc h/Ap rill997 m 1077-2618/97/$10 0001997 IEEE
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/28/2019 00579134
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/00579134 1/15
IIIII
IIIIIIII
I
I
I
I
II
III
I
IIII
II
I
I
I
I
IIIIIIIII
II
IIII
II
III
I
III
II
istorically, hazardous area classification
has been the responsibility of the plant
electrical engineer In actuality, how-
ever, many projects were being designed with
minimum input from plant engineering. Most
consulting firms would use an ultra-conservative
approach with little input from process engineers
and no consideration for potential cost savings.
The existing national standards and guidelines are
written to provide safety and flexibility of design
and are difficult for the inexperienced engineer to
interpret Even for the experienced engineers, this
flexibility often leads to different interpretations
for similar situations. In 1993 a small group of
electrical engineers recognized a need for stan-
dardization without compromising safety, and
formed a technical committee to address this issue
This paper will present the result of the commit-
tee’s work as a corporate engineering technical
guideline that is currently being used by Eli Lilly
and Company.
It must be stressed that the purpose of this
guideline is to provide guidance for the design,
construction, opera tion, and maintenance of facili-
ties for Eli Lilly and Company only. It is based on
more than 158 years of engineering and opera-
tional experiences, national guidelines, and stan-
dards. Other companies may find this article useful
in developing their own guidelines for hazardous
area classifications; however, Eli Lilly and Com-pany takes no responsibility for their decisions in
classifying areas
The guideline is intended to assist in theclassification of most (about 90%) hazardous
Thzs artzcle appeared zn zts orzgznal i r m a t the 1995
Petroleum and Chemzcal InduJ-try Conference.
Hernandez zs chazrman o f the Elz Lzlly Hazardous
Areas Tech nzcal Commzttee Other members znclude
Barry A Bradley, Ronald W. Crooke, Eric B
Faulkner, Wzllzam M LewzJ-,VzetQ Maz, KennethA.
Mes~zck,ames K Mzles, and Kevzn D Wzlhelm.
locations encountered a t this company as de-
fined by the Nat ional Electrical Code, and does
not cover unique installatio ns The guideline is
intended to
II increase consistency from project to project
by standardizing the classification approval
procedure and the final documentation
improve and ensure personnel safety and pre-
vent property loss
W deliver a facility fo r the lowest cost without
compromising safety
II speed design
II make future changes and revisions easier
w define involvement of the appropriate indi-
viduals needed for the classification process
improve communications of hazardous loca-
tions to personnel by providing clear refer-
ences and documents
In the past, hazardous area classifications were
done in a variety of ways, often resulting in bad ex-
periences, such as improper classifications and
finger-pointing among the design team. At our
company, a design team for a project is usually
composed of an engineer of each discipline (chemi-
cal, electrical, process control , mechanical, struc-
tural) all led by a project engineer who usually has
no electrical background and is mostly focused on
budget and schedule. This team operates from a
central location and is usually not in tune with in-
dividual plant operations The same team format
existed at the consulting firm with even less plant
operations experience Due to personnel turnover
at the company and at the consulting firm, therewere communication gaps that led to errors in clas-
sification. Because of the ultra-conservative nature
of the classifications, we have experienced no
physical losses or injuries due to improper classifi-
cation. The only losses experienced were financial,
due to the excessive cost of equipment and the dif-
ficulty of designing to satisfy restrictive classifi-
ing of lab personnel. Generally “lab quantities” are
less than 1 gallon (4 liters approximately) of each
liquid, and total for the lab would not exceed 100
gallons. In most cases labs do not haveor handle suf-
ficient quantities to justify classifying these rooms.
7. Refrigerators
Domestic refrigerators shall comply with
NFPA45
Standard on Fire Protection for Labora-
tories using Chemicals (Chapter 9 and Table 1).
8. Relationship of exposure levels to explosive
limits in classified location A decision between Di-
vision 1or Division 2 can often be clarified by con-
sidering the lower exposure limits and operating
procedures. The exposure limit of most flammable
liquids handled and processed at this campany is
much lower than the lower explosive limit percent-
age. Normally the lower exposure level is less than
25% of the lower explosive imit. Therefore, ifper-
sonnel can be in the areas without being required to
wear respirators, then the containment or ventila-
tion or both are adequate to prevent explosive con-
centrations, and a Division 1classification may notbe required.
9 . Safety Disconnect Switches
In Division 1 areas, all switches must be ap-
proved for the area and group. For Division 2 areas,
switches intended to interrupt current in the nor-
mal performance of the function for which they are
installed shall be provided with enclosures ap-
proved for Division 1 locations, unless the contacts
are hermetically sealed, oil-immersed, or within a
factory-sealed explosion-proof chamber. I t is the
current practice that motor safety disconnect
switches will be NEMA 4 or 4 X in Class I or Class
11, Division 2 areas to provide an additional level of
safety and to provide wash-down capability. If
safety disconnect switches are installed in Division
2 areas where it will be normal operation for them
t o interrupt current, then explosion-proof enclo-
sures will be required. Also, if isolating (non inter-
rupting) switches are used in Division 2 areas, the
switches can be non-rated, and must be labeled
“DoNot Open Under Load”.
XIII . Class I1 Locations Only
A. Requirements
1.Lighting
A common practice at Eli Lilly and Company is
to classify the area above a ceiling as non-hazardous
and use non-rated lighting in thes’e areas where a
room might be Division 2 . If surface-mounted or
suspended fixtures are used, then either the appro-
priately rated fixture must be provided or the area
must be de-rated in the area of the light fixtures.
The most common problem associatedwith properlighting application in Division 2 areas is the
proper T-rating. If a fixture does not have a T-
rating lower than the AIT of the potential hazard-
ous atmosphere, then the surface temperature of
the lamp must be less than 80% of the AIT or it
must be approved for Class 11, Division 1. Docu-
mented housekeeping procedures can justify
downgrading a classification from Class 11, Divi-
sion 1 to Class 11, Division 2.
2 . Magnesium and Metal Dusts
Metal dusts are considered Division 1,Group E.
Metal shavings and pellets are not considered
metal dusts. Water-reactive dusts should not be
considered when classifying an area for electrical
equipment.
3. Motors
For Division 2 equipment, group designation s
insignificant, and Division 1 or “explosion-proof’
motors are not required. The important criterion is
the surface operating temperature, or T-number.
The T-number is derived from tests at a specified
ambient temperature and can sometimes be ad-
justed, but it must always be considered for Divi-
sion 1or 2 locations. TEFC or ODP +phase motors
are safe in Division 2 areas without special approval
because a 3-phase, squirrel cage motor has no arc-
ing or sparking components to provide an ignition
source under normal operation. For Class 11,Divi-
sion 1 areas, the important criterion is operation
under the specified temperature with a dust layer.
Motors must be labeled for use in Class IT, Division
1areas. Documented housekeeping procedures can
justify downgrading a classification from Division
1 to Division 2.4 . Quantities
In non-processing areas such as laboratories and
developmental facilities, the quant ity of ignitable
dusts is a critical factor in determining the need t o
classify. Other factors include ventilation, contain-
ment, drains, ignition sources, and skillsitraining
of lab personnel. Generally “lab quan tities” are less
than 1 pound (454 grams) of each dust, and total
for the lab would not exceed 100 pounds. In most
cases labs do not have or handle sufficient quanti -
ties to justify classifying these rooms.
5 . Safety Disconnect Switches
In Division 1 areas, al l switches must be ap-
proved for the area and group. For Division 2 areas,
switches intended to interrupt current in the nor-
mal performance of the function for which they are
installed shall be provided with enclosures ap-
proved for Division 1 locations, unless the contacts
7/28/2019 00579134
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/00579134 10/15
are hermetically sealed, oil-immersed, or within a
factory-sealed explosion-proof chamber. It is the
current practice that motor safety disconnect
switches will be NEMA 4 or 4 X in Class I or Class
11, Division 2 areas to provide an additional level of
safety and to provide wash-down capability. If
safety disconnect switches are installed in Division
2 areas where it will be normal operation for them
to interrupt current, then explosion-proof enclo-
sures will be required. Also, if isolating (non-
interrupting) switches are used in Division 2 areas,
the switches can be non-rated, and must be labeled
“Do Not Open Under Load”. Documented house-
keeping procedures can justify downgrading a clas-
sification from Division 1 to Division 2 .
6. Sealing
Sealing in Class I1areas is significantly different
than in Class I, NFPA 70-502-5 shall be consulted
Material
for requirements. I n general, place equipment out -
side the hazardous area where practical.
XIV. Class I11 Locations
This Technical Guideline does no t cover Class
XV. Interpretation
The Hazardous Locations Technical Commit-
tee is the owner of this Technical Guideline; there-
fore it will interpret the intent of this document.
The Committee will be responsible for resolving
differences of opinion whenever these arise. For any
changes or suggestions to this Technical Guide-
line, please contact any committee member.
I11 locations.
XVI. Consultation
For any questions about how to use this guide-
William M. Lewis, 317-277-1409
Electrical Engineering Consultant
line or for further direction, contact:
Group AIT (C) Flash PI (C ) LE1(%) UEL (%) VD (Vapor Density)
1. Chemical Data Table-SAMPLE(Class I Chemicals as Defi ned i n NFPA 30)*
Material
Acetc Acid
Acetc Anydride
1 Chemicals which are commonly used or produced atElLilly for consideration when classifying areas for electrical equipment: I
Group AIT (C ) Flash PI (C) LE1(%) UEL (%) VD (Vapor Density)
D 464 39 4 19.9 2.1
D 316 49 2.7 10.3 1.1
1 Class IChemicalsas Defined n NFPA 30 I
Material
Analine
BenzylChloride
Cyclohexanol
Group AlT (0 Flash Pt (C) LE1(%) UEL (% ) VD (Vapor Density)
D 615 70 1.3 11.1 3.2
D 585 67 1.1 4.4
D 300 68 3.5
1 Acetaldehyde 1 C I175I Acetone I D 14651 Acetonitrile I D I524 14.4 11.4 I1 Class IIChemicals as Defined in NFPA 30: I
I Cyclohexanone I D 1245 144 11.1 19.4 13.4 I 1 Class MA Chemicalsas Defined in NFPA 30: I
III
I
I
I I I
I I II
I
II
I II I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
IIIIIIII
II
I
I
IIII
I I
I
II
I I
II
III II
I
I *Class I, IIandM A chemicals shouldnotbeconfused with Class I, 11 or 111 electrical classification.I I
III
IIII
III
I
€BEEE Industry Applications Magazine March/Apri/ I997
7/28/2019 00579134
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/00579134 11/15
I
III
I
I
IIIII
I
II
II
I
II
I
III
I
III
II
I
I
II
II
IIIII
IIIIII
III
IIIIIIIIIIII
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
III
I
rb
ELECTRICAL H ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ U STI^̂^INVESTIGATION R E P O R T
1 Are flammable iiquids, vapors or gases likely to b e present inquantrtles sufficient to produ ce
explosive or ignltlble mixtures'
Ar e combustible liquids likely to be handled, processed, or stored at temperatures above their flashpoints in quantities sufficient to produce exploslve or ignitlble mixtures?
2
1.
2.
is an ignitible atmospheric mixture ikelyto exist under normal operating conditions?
Is an ignitible atmospheric mlxture ikely to occur frequently due to maintenance, repairor leakage?
3. Would a failure of process equipment, storage vessels, or piping systems be likelyto cause a failure of
the electrical system simukaneously with the release of the combustible material?
4. Is a piping system containing a combustible material in an inadequately ventilated space, and is thepiping system likely to leak?
is the space or area in question belowgrade leve l such that vapors may accumulate therein?.
6. Are pressure relief valve discharges located within the area?
Division 2 locations are distinguisticd by an affirmative a i ?w e r io air#on6! of the f:J liuwing qcicstiuns:
1. Is a piping system containing a combustible material n an inadequately ventilated space, and is thepiping system not likely to leak?
Is a process equipment system containing a combustible material in an inadequately ventilated space,and can the material escape only during abnormal situations, such as a failure of a gasket or packing?
2.
3. Is the location adjacent and open to a Division1 location, or can gas or vapor be transmitted from aDivision 1 location to the location n question by trenches, pipes, or ducts?
4. If mechanical VentilationIsused. can failure or abnormal operation of the ventilation equipmentpermit an ignitible atmospheric mixture?
Are the operations In this area likelyto require a R ivision2 classification inthe near future?.
References: Extentof a hazardous location maybe determined rom diagrams, figures 3-4.1 through 3-4.34NFPA Code 497A, efiective2/10/92
Lllly Safety Information Manual, Sec. p.10Lilly EngineeringTechnical Guidelines 01555 (Hazardous Locations C lass ifications)
iNSWER
lNSWER
Rev. 12115194
Fig . 1A. Investig ation report-Class I locations.
/€ Endusfry ApplicationsMagazine I orch/Apri/ 1997
7/28/2019 00579134
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/00579134 12/15
DATE: REQUESTER: AREA:
REASON F ~ ~ . ! . ~ . ~ . ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ 1Y.f% DE ~ ~ V ~ ~ T ~ - A ~ ~ ~ ~
P rocess Cha nge New Project Locationto be Classified 0
Equipment Changes Other U Location to be Re-classified
PRESENT CLASS IF ICAT ION
0eneralClass I 0 GroupA 0 GroupE 0 Division 1 0 Purpose
Class II 0 GroupB 0 GroupF 0 Division 2 0
Class 111 0 GroupC 0 GroupG 0 N/A 0
Group D 0
Investtgattian Committee
Chairman Member MemberElectrical Engr. Operation Rep. Process Engineer
Member Member Member
Member Member Member
Fire Protection Rep. P lant Safety Rep Mechanical Engineer
Bullding Engineer Civil Engineer Other
DESC PTlON
MEW CLASSIFICATION
Class I 0 0 ~ r o u p ~U
Class I1 0 GroupB
Class 111 GroupC 0GroupD 0
Class I op y
Chairman
Drawing No.
Electrical Engineer
Drawings U pdated
(Date)
Area Posted
(Date)
GroupE c]
GroupF 0
GroupG c]
Division 1 0
Division 2
0 ~A 0Approval Group
Plant Electrical Engr.
P lant Fire P rotection Representative
Area Supervision
Initials Building Engineer
Electrical Engineering ConsultantRev 12/16!94
Initials
Class ICopy
Fig. 1B . Class I invest igat ion report (continued) .
II
IIIIIII
II
II
II
II
II
IiII
II
II
IIII
IIII
IIII
II
I
IIII
IIIII
IIII
I
iI
/FEE lndustryApplications Mojozine m Morch/Apr i l I997
7/28/2019 00579134
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/00579134 13/15
I
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
II
IiIII
III
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
IIIIII
II
III
I
III
III
I
I
II
I
I
I
III
I
II
III
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
II
II
III
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
III
Need for classification, if the following ques tion IS answered aftirmarive
ANSWER
Ia. Are combustible dusts likely to be present inquantltles sufficient to produce explosive or Ignitible
mixtures? 11Division 1 iocationlit aredistinguished hy an afllrinntivc answer to ai?* oi3e of tiic ioiiowing questions:
a.
b.
Is a Group E dust present in hazardous quanlities?
is a dust likely to be in suspension n air continuously, periodically. or intermttentiy under normalconditions n quantities sufficienttoproduce explosive or ignitible mixtures?
c. Will mechanicai ailure orabnormal operation of machinery or equipment cause such explosive orignitible mixturesto be produced, and might it also provide a source of ignition through simultaneous
failureof electrical equipment operation of protective devices or from other causes?
d. Are there dust layers or accumulations on surlaces deeper than 118in. (3.18 mm)?
tNSWER
Division 2 laciltiafls lor Group Fo r G dusts are dirjlinguishlrc! ay dii affirniatrve ISWB to any 0118 l the followingquestions:
IANSWER
a. Is the dustnotnormally in suspension n the air in quantities sufficient to produce explosive orignitible mixlures, but could be thrown into suspension by infrequent malfunctioningof handlingor processing equipment?
b. Are the dust accumulations nsufficient to interfere with the normal operationof electrical equipment,but could the accumulations be ignited by the abnormal operation or failure of electrical equipment?
c.
d.
isthere a dust layerthat makes the colors of the surfaces indiscernible?
Would the failure of mechanicai dust collection allow an ignitible suspensionof dust or a layer deeperthan 1/8 in (3.18mm) to build up?
References: Extent of a hazardous ocation maybe determined from diagrams, figures 5-3.1 through 5-3.9NFPA Code 4978, effective 2/08/91Liliy Safety Information Manual,Sec. p.10Lllly Engineering Technical Guidelines 01555 (Hazardous L ocations Classifications)