Oil and Gas Class 1, Div 2 - Which Approval authority?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eluke

Member
We have recently received some conflicting information regarding Class 1, Division 2 Groups A,B,C and D Hazardous Environment Approvals and I am hoping that someone may be able to help us to clarify the issue.

It appears you can use any of the following authorities to get this approval :

UL
FM
CSA
ETL

For CSA, some people mention (in product brochures) "ANSI/UL equivalent".

My understanding is that FM is now essentially irrelevant and obsolete so it would seem that UL and CSA seem to be the authorities of preference.

However, I have recently heard that there is also an organisation called ETL who claim to be an 'equivalent authority' to UL.

Does anyone have a preference for getting an approval from one of the above authorities?

Is ETL a suitable certification authority?

Does the Oil and Gas market have a preference for a specific approval authority?

I am interested in any comments since I don't know much about safety of electrical equipment for oil and gas applications.

It is also hard to get independent advice. No matter who you ask (UL, CSA, FM, ETL), they all seem to say "Choose us, were the most accepted industry leader, blah blah"

Thanks in advance.

Luke
 
Re: Oil and Gas Class 1, Div 2 - Which Approval authority?

To: eluke, I am not quite sure what you are asking for, but I will give it a try. First, you mentioned the approval agencies that approve equipment, such as FM, UL, and CSA. These are the organizations that when we dealt with hazardous areas, the equipment that we put into a classified area had to have the approval of one of those agencies.
Now if you are looking for how to classify an area, you need to go to the NFPA.One of their manuals is NFPA 497. I blieve that is the correct manual for information on how to classify.
Then you have the National Electrical Code, and Articles 500, and Article 501 and 502, would be the area you would need to go.
I worked for the DuPont Co. for 45 years and we did a great deal of classifying areas. Bottom line, you need to have experienced, knowlegable personnel when you are dealing with hazardous areas. Also, you need to keep the AHJ completely informed of what and how you are doing this project.I have seen cases, when we did not keep him informed and it caused us much delays and it was costly.
 
Re: Oil and Gas Class 1, Div 2 - Which Approval authority?

All four are recognized under FedOSHA's Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories program. ETL is now Intertek but continues to use the ETL mark.

For hazardous location products, they may have various restrictions, though not necessarily serious limitations, on their scope. For example CSA must certify a product to an appropriate US (read UL) standard rather than a Canadian one; or ETL may only certify out of their Cortland, NY lab.

Go to the website noted above and select any of the NRTLs to determine their scope. You will find several other NRTLs there too. Of the four mentioned, the only real care you need is to make sure the CSA label has a "US," "UL," or "NRTL" appended to it. Otherwise, all four are acceptable.
 
Re: Oil and Gas Class 1, Div 2 - Which Approval authority?

I have a PLC control product which I need to get tested for Class 1, Division 2 Groups A,B,C or D.

What I am really trying to work out is which approval authority will give me more marketing advantage.

ie: Everyone appears to recognise UL and FM. CSA too has weight but ETL (Intertek) appears to be less well known.

I agree that from a technical viewpoint, it doesn't matter which authority does the testing (UL,FM,CSA or ETL) providing it meets the required standards for Class 1, Division 2.

I have heard that UL and FM can be difficult and costly to work with when getting a product approved and listed. CSA appears to be popular, ETL appears to gaining market share too.

Any further comments?
 
Re: Oil and Gas Class 1, Div 2 - Which Approval authority?

I'm not a manufacturer, so this is purely an opinion based on working with the field services groups of UL and ETL. I've never worked with either CSA or FM.

I found ETL to be the more responsive and a bit more economical. No knowledgeable AHJ has rejected either of them. Ultimately, none have.

A PLC installed in Division 2 definitely will need type testing. Assuming you successfully address any mechanical switching devices(not too difficult in Div 2), the "T" rating will probably still be a real hurdle. It could severely limit the applications. Purging/pressurizing may be a reasonable option.

[Edit: Add] For marketing purposes "Listed to UL Standard(s) ____" should be adequate. Oil & Gas folks are generally familiar with all of them.

[ August 10, 2004, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
 
Re: Oil and Gas Class 1, Div 2 - Which Approval authority?

To: eluke, If I understand what you have said in your last message is the following: You have a PLC product that you want to get approved for a Class 1, Division 2, Group A,B,C,or D area.
I have worked with Allen-Bradley PLC's, just recently the SLC-500 model. It is already approved for a Class 1, Div. 2, Group B,C,D.
But eluke, let me give you my opinion. I have installed many PLC's, and I have never installed them in a hazardous area. For many of the following reasons.
1. When your technicians need to trouble-shoot the PLC,they are in a hazardous area where you need special permits to be using testers, etc. And as you are aware, that in a non-hazardous area your technicians can use any test equipment without any danger or violating a safety procedure.
2. I have always installed the PLC in a Electrical Control Room, that is air-conditioned.
I realize that Allen-Bradley PLC's say that they can be in a atmosphere of 104 degrees F.
But, as you and I know, if you can keep you electronic circuits cooler, they will hold up better. All of this information is food for thought, and I just wanted to pass on my opinion for what it is worth. Good-luck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top