ATEX certification vs. IECEX

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HSB_007

Member
Location
Dhahran, Eastern, Saudi Arabia
Good day all

I am trying to really understand the real differences between ATEX and IECEX certifications. I do understand that IECEX has more stringent rules when it comes to certifications especially for zone 2 areas (no self-certification). Furthermore, the quality control is better with IECEX, but the real question here is: If I do standardize or accept ATEX certification, could that jeapordize the safety or integrity of my plants?

We currently do not accept ATEX certification because we do think this is merely for EU countries.

I would like to hear your explanations to either go with ATEX or reject it but with a good reason, if it exists.

Thank you
 
HSB_007 said:
Good day all

I am trying to really understand the real differences between ATEX and IECEX certifications. I do understand that IECEX has more stringent rules when it comes to certifications especially for zone 2 areas (no self-certification). Furthermore, the quality control is better with IECEX, but the real question here is: If I do standardize or accept ATEX certification, could that jeapordize the safety or integrity of my plants?

We currently do not accept ATEX certification because we do think this is merely for EU countries.

I would like to hear your explanations to either go with ATEX or reject it but with a good reason, if it exists.

Thank you
Click to expand...

You are correct that the ATEX directive (94/9/EC) is a European Union law and thus only applicable for the European Union (Not necessarily all of Europe!!). There are similarities to IECEx, in the fact that the harmonized standards used for presumption of conformity are adopted from the IEC standards. They are usually one edition back, but not always. The harmonized standards are call EN's (European Norms). The ATEX directive requires the manufacturer to declare that the equipment that they produce complies with the directive, even for Zone 0/20 and Zone 1/21 that require an EC-type certificate (evaluation) by a Notified Body (NB).

You are further correct that there is a difference in Zone 2/22 requirements between ATEX and IECEx. ATEX allows companies to self declare compliance with applicable standards for Zone 2/22 equipment without an Ex Quality Management System (ExQMS) in place. But you had better have a good technical file to support that claim in the event that your declaration is challenged whether legitimately or not. IECEx requires evaluation of Zone 2/22 equipment by a Competent Body (CB) and that the manufacturer has an ExQMS in place. (Or alternatively, the manufacturer can have individual system evaluations by a CB).

So why the fuss for IECEx Zone 2/22 equipment? Simple, The IECEx test report is used by the IECEx member countries as the basis of local approvals. The integrity and uniformity of the test report is essential to allow member countries to evaluate the tests performed and make decisions whether a product can get a local approval. With the exception of Australia (forgive me if there are more, my mind isn't what it used to be), other member countries require local approval based off of the test report. So IECEx approval is not an automatic entry into Haz Loc market, but it helps greatly. Hopefully that explains the reason for the difference.

Now to pull this around to the National Electric Code, US NRTL's do not accept ATEX certificates, or CE declarations as a basis of approval. Period. The US and Canada are member countries of the IECEx and will accept the IECEx test report as a basis of gaining NRTL approval in the US. But be advised, getting a Zone 1/21 approval is very limited in it's usefulness in North America. Only haz loc areas that are classified as Zones can use it and it does not translate to Div. 1 at all. In North America, the Class / Division system is deeply engrained and Class/Zone classifications seem to be slow to catch on. In order to get Div.1 approval based off of an IECEx test report, the equipment must have been tested to Zone 0/20. Also be advised that protection schemes such as Flameproof "d", and non-sparking "nA" are significantly different in the North American Standards.

Bottom line, take the time to understand where the product is going to ensure you get the appropriate approvals using the appropriate protection methods.

Cheers,
Bill
 
Just as a second opinion, Product Safety Guy is correct. ATEX is an EU Directive, good only in the EU. IECEx generally accepted globally (IEC standards vs. EN). It's often cost-effective to get them at the same time, especially if you're pushing into markets outside the EU.
 
geerhed said:
Just as a second opinion, Product Safety Guy is correct. ATEX is an EU Directive, good only in the EU. IECEx generally accepted globally (IEC standards vs. EN). It's often cost-effective to get them at the same time, especially if you're pushing into markets outside the EU.
Click to expand...

In my experience in the industry, IECEx requirements are the most difficult and rigorous to achieve. While IECEx is not necessarily recognized in the US, if you are trying to have your installation inspected, there is a much higher likelihood that if you used an IECEx rated component over an ATEX component, that it would be accepted or require less testing
 
ATEX vs. IECEX

ATEX vs. IECEX

Thank you all gentlemen

To me, the issue is really: If I accept ATEX equipment in my plant, will that pose a safety threat? Will this equipment cause a serious hazard? I would tend to think, NO unless you question the overall quality.

If the issue is integrity related to quality work, then this is also going to introduce safety concern (eventually).

To us, we decided not to go with ATEX because the marking would cause confusion, especially if you accept IECEX, and NEC. You will have three markings to take care of.

Thank you
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top