Which Hazardous Location Standard to use for obtaining Certification

Status
Not open for further replies.

DM2-Inc

Senior Member
Location
Houston, Texas
I'm trying to decide what hazardous location standard to use for obtaining a certification, and what organization to use. Based on my current research into OSHA's NRTL Approved standards, it would be either ISA 12.12.01, or FM3611 for non incendive equipment. I've read a NEMA article, which dates back to 2013 which essentially states that OSHA still hasn't given any NRTL accreditation to US NRTL, for the use any of the IEC 60079 standards. I've also seen a Federal Register post (78: 70329-70349), which essentially states that same thing.

The priority is to get approval for installing the equipment in the US (i.e. OSHA regulated), and then other parts of the world. It's my understanding that the IEC 60079 series of standards is more globally accepted. The equipment is already certified by TUV with an ATEX certifications. TUV, is attempting to market themselves as being the end-all test lab for certifications. I called them out on the ISA and FM standards as they're not accredited by OSHA to use them, to which they responded we should hire them as a consultant to review the product for compliance to either the ISA, FM or IEC standards (it's amazing what someone will do for money).

We're now in discussions with CSA, FM, and Intertek. These NRTL's are OSHA accredited to test to either the ISA or FM standard, but i'm trying to get the most bank for my buck and was hoping I could have the product tested to IEC standards and still use it in the US. Today, I don't think that's possible however.

Question: Is there some sort of loop hole for using IEC approved products in the US I can leverage?
Question: Does anyone have more insight into OSHA they allowing NRTL's to use IEC 60079 series of standards for testing?
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
You might be able to meet both US and IEC standards in the same instrument if you were only using IS as your protection means. I have seen that done.

Beyond that, the standards are different enough that it might not be possible to meet both in the same instrument.
 

DM2-Inc

Senior Member
Location
Houston, Texas
Bob,
Can you elaborate on your response?

When you say
...if you were only using IS as your protection means. I have seen that done.

How have you seen it done with others? If it has an ISA approval, I've got to believe it's more of a "loop hole" with documentation rather than retesting the product.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Bob,
Can you elaborate on your response?

When you say

How have you seen it done with others? If it has an ISA approval, I've got to believe it's more of a "loop hole" with documentation rather than retesting the product.

ISA does not approve anything.

When I mentioned IS, I was referring to using Intrinsically Safe (IS) circuits as a means of protection that potentially could be used in both the US and IEC markets.

There is no "loop hole". You either meet the requirements and have documents to show that or you don't.
 

DM2-Inc

Senior Member
Location
Houston, Texas
Bob,
I realize that ISA doesn't approve anything, however several NRTL's use the ISA standard 12.12.01, or FM 3611 as they're OSHA approved standards.
Unfortunately, switching to Intrinsically Safe (IS), isn't an option we're willing to look at.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
What protection means does this equipment use now? You mentioned NI equipment, but I seem to recall that the IEC equivalent is considerable different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top