Zone Equipment in Class I, Division 2 location

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Shells

Member
Good Day,
My facility was classified to NEC standards. However, in some areas, because the OEM from which equipment was purchased was European, we have equipment installed that are marked for Class 1, Zone 1 or Class 1, Zone 2 areas despite being in a Class 1, Division 2 location as per the HAC study. From my interpretation of the code, the equipment must be stamped for the area it is installed so in this case it should state Class 1, Division 2 etc. or alternatively Class, Zone but have Aex to identify that it has been tested to American Standards. Am I interpreting this correctly? Are we in non-compliance? If so, has anyone been in this situation and if so what was done? This is alot of equipment to replace. Someone has suggested "grandfathering" - this installation probably goes back 15 years, not sure if this allowed. Any advice would be appreciated

Thanks
 
Take a look at 501.5.
501.5 Zone Equipment
Equipment listed and marked in accordance with 505.9(C)(2) f or use in Zone 0, 1, or 2 locations shall be permitted in Class I, Division 2 locations for the same gas and with a suitable temperature class. Equipment listed and marked in accordance with 505.9(C)(2) for use in Zone 0 locations shall be permitted in Class I, Division 1 or Division 2 locations for the same gas and with a suitable temperature class.
Click to expand...
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Take a look at 501.5.
Click to expand...

Thanks Don. This is the part of the code I am referring to also but here it states it needs to comply with 505.9.(C)(2) which states it must be marked with all of the following:
(1) Class
(2) Zone
(3) Symbol "Aex" etc....

My equipment does not have the 'Aex' symbol. So thats what I am concerned about. Am I missing something?
 
If your facility is subject to FedOSHA or most StateOSHAs, "grandfathering" isn't appropriate since NRTL certification for classified location equipment has been a fundamental requirement since 1972. Equipment only marked to IEC standards ("Ex") aren't compliant.

That said, there may still be hope. Not all Division 2 equipment is required to be certified specifically for Division 2. Review Article 501, Part III for various Division 2 applications. Also review Section 500.8 carefully, [especially Subsections (B) and (C)] for approval and marking requirements. Do NOT let the term identified confuse you; it does not necessarily mean listed or labeled. See Section 500.8(A) for the concept of suitability.
 
rbalex said:
If your facility is subject to FedOSHA or most StateOSHAs, "grandfathering" isn't appropriate since NRTL certification for classified location equipment has been a fundamental requirement since 1972. Equipment only marked to IEC standards ("Ex") aren't compliant.

That said, there may still be hope. Not all Division 2 equipment is required to be certified specifically for Division 2. Review Article 501, Part III for various Division 2 applications. Also review Section 500.8 carefully, [especially Subsections (B) and (C)] for approval and marking requirements. Do NOT let the term identified confuse you; it does not necessarily mean listed or labeled. See Section 500.8(A) for the concept of suitability.
Click to expand...




Ok this part about suitability really caught me! This could change things - if I interpret this correctly, it does not need to be listed and labeled IF I have, and I am assuming documented evidence from the testing lab OR manufacturer's self evaluation OR engineering judgment then we might be ok! Am I right?? Thanks a million!
 
Shells said:
[/B]

... Am I right?? ...
Click to expand...
Basically. A word of caution. It takes a fair degree of knowledge and experience to qualify for the last option. Personally, I have no problem evaluating IEC marked equipment for US domestic use. But I am a special case ;):angel:
 
rbalex said:
Basically. A word of caution. It takes a fair degree of knowledge and experience to qualify for the last option. Personally, I have no problem evaluating IEC marked equipment for US domestic use. But I am a special case ;):angel:
Click to expand...

Noted. I think that I would steer away from that one. Just another question though - I know one of the major differences between NEC and IEC has to do with the testing - NEC being more rigid. Also I believe how terminations are treated as ignition sources varies between both. What are some of the other considerations? I'm just trying to understand the risks... if any

Appreciate your response. Really has helped alot
 
You may be surprised which is the more rigorous in any given situation. For example, there is no "general purpose" equipment in IEC applications for hazardous locations even in Zone 2.

Unless specially treated (Ex e) terminations and spices are considered arc-making in IEC applications. They can basically be ignored in Division 2 for NEC applications.

There are several "maverick" gases and vapors that do not fit as neat equivalents between the two systems. See NFPA 496. This can be especially problematic since there are four Groups in Divisions and only three in Zones. Depending on the Group involved, the ignition tests might be considered more rigorous in one system or the other. I tend to be more concerned with AIT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top