http://mtlinst.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/the-future-role-of-the-humble-paper-clip-in-hazardous-areas/ Thoughts and Comments on what is happening in the Ex field Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:09:33 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 http://mtlinst.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/the-future-role-of-the-humble-paper-clip-in-hazardous-areas/#comment-982 Estellito Rangel Jr. - Brazil Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:10:31 +0000 http://mtlinst.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/the-future-role-of-the-humble-paper-clip-in-hazardous-areas/#comment-982 This is a very important safety measure, as we know that OSHA is a legal requirement for USA, beyond a simply technical one. Regarding the OSHA "permitted installations": 1) intrinsically safe, 2) approved for the hazardous (classified) location, or 3) safe for the hazardous (classified) location, please, note that it is not allowed to consider "the consequences of an explosion" to install equipment with a "lower safety degree" of those required by American standards. Comparing with the IEC EPL method, where a "lower EPL than required" is allowed if "the consequences of the explosion" are "small", we can say that OSHA method is safer. The EPL method sounds as a "black hole", where all installation's "non-conformities" can "disappear" with a snap, simply saying that "the consequence of an explosion is low". How may deaths can be considered as "low consequence" of an explosion? This "EPL" seems to be against all safe requirements given by IEC Ex standards. This is a very important safety measure, as we know that OSHA is a legal requirement for USA, beyond a simply technical one.
Regarding the OSHA “permitted installations”: 1) intrinsically safe, 2) approved for the hazardous (classified) location, or 3) safe for the hazardous (classified) location, please, note that it is not allowed to consider “the consequences of an explosion” to install equipment with a “lower safety degree” of those required by American standards.
Comparing with the IEC EPL method, where a “lower EPL than required” is allowed if “the consequences of the explosion” are “small”, we can say that OSHA method is safer.
The EPL method sounds as a “black hole”, where all installation’s “non-conformities” can “disappear” with a snap, simply saying that “the consequence of an explosion is low”.
How may deaths can be considered as “low consequence” of an explosion?
This “EPL” seems to be against all safe requirements given by IEC Ex standards.

]]>