PROSPECTS FOR WORLDWIDE HARMONIZATION OF HAZARDOUS AREA DESIGNATIONS, EQUIPMENT STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION/APPROVAL REQUIRMENTS
In both Canada and the United States, efforts have been made to change codes and standards to allow use of the zone classification system, for new installations, and for reclassifying existing facilities. However, getting users to apply these will not be easy. As part of the study, VDC surveyed North American users on the hazardous region categorizations in which they are using intrinsically safe protection methods, and where they expect to be using these in 2006. The results show that a very small share of applications are expected to shift to zone classifications. In addition, it appears that many of the zone applications indicated were for use in areas outside of North America.
(PRWEB) March 19, 2003
Natick, Massachusetts - March 17, 2003 - A study from Venture Development Corporation (VDC) titled "European and North American Markets For Intrinsically Safe Equipment" investigates ongoing efforts to create uniform worldwide standards for hazardous region classifications, for equipment used in such regions, and for means of certify the equipment. Hazardous regions are areas where there can be ignitable or explosive atmospheres, such as gas-air mixtures, and certain dusts. Means must be provided to prevent equipment used in these regions from causing ignitions or explosions. Intrinsic safety is a method used extensively in Europe for this purpose. It also is gaining favor in North America.
HAZARDOUS REGION CATEGORIZATIONS
Below shows the hazardous region categorizations systems used in Europe and North America. A region that is designated as Zone 0, Zone 20, Zone 1, or Zone 21 in the European system can be considered an equivalent to Division 1 in the North American classification system, while a region designated as Zone 2, or Zone 22, can be considered equivalent to a Division 2 designation in North America.
Comparison of Hazardous Region Categorization Systems
In Europe and North America
IN EUROPE-ZONE AND GROUP CATEGORIES
Zone 0 - Has the highest likelihood of the presence of an explosive gas-air atmosphere. If an area contains an explosive gas-air atmosphere for an extended period of time, on the order of 1000 hours or more a year, the area will be designated as Zone 0.
Zone 1 - Is likely to have an explosive gas-air atmosphere during periods of normal operation. If an area contains an explosive gas-air atmosphere on the order of 10 to 1000 hours a year, the area will be designated as Zone 1.
Zone 2 - An explosive gas-air atmosphere is not likely to occur, and if it does occur, will only exist for a short time. If an area contains an explosive gas-air atmosphere for short periods of time, on the order of less than 10 hours per year, the area will be designated as Zone 2.
There are equivalent zone categories for explosive dust atmospheres: Zone 20, Zone 21, and Zone 22.
In Europe there are two major group categories. Group I, is designated for mining environments where explosive methane and coal dust atmospheres may be present. Group II designations are for surface industries.
In North America-Division, Class, and Group Categories
Division I - There is a high probability of an explosive atmosphere in normal operation. This can be for part of the time, up to all the time.
Division II - There is a low probability of an explosive atmosphere being present during normal operation.
The North American class designations are:
Class I - Contains flammable gases or vapors in quantities large enough to produce an explosion.
Class II - Is hazardous due to the presence of combustible dust in the air.
Class III - Contains easily ignitable fibers or flyings in the air. However, the quantities of fibers and flyings suspended in the air are not likely to be large enough to cause an explosion.
Group designations further define the types of gases, and dusts:
Groups - Type of Atmosphere
Group A - Acetylene
Group B - Acrolein, Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide, Hydrogen, Propylene Oxide
Group C - Aldehydes, Cyclopropane, Ethers, Ethylene
Group D - Acetone, Alcohols, Alkenes, Amines, Ammonia, Benzene, Benzol, Butane, Diesel Oil, Esters, Ethane, Gasoline, Hexane, Kerosene, Ketones, Lacquer Solvent Vapors, Methane, Naphtha, Natural Gas, Octane, Petroleum, Propane
Group E - Metallic Dusts - Aluminum, Bronze Powder Magnesium (Resistivity < 100 kohms/cm)
Group F - Coal Dusts - Carbon Black, Charcoal, Coal, Coke Dusts
Group G - Grain Dusts - Cocoa, Dairy Powders, Dried Hay, Flour, Pulverized Sugar, Starch (Resistivity > 100 kohms/cm)
**************************************************
To view the entire press release including charts go to
Http://www. vdc-corp. com/industrial/press/03/pr03-24.html (http://www. vdc-corp. com/industrial/press/03/pr03-24.html)
**************************************************
A different way of stating this is that Division 1 designations in the North American system straddles Zone O, Zone 20, Zone 1 and Zone 21 designations in the European system, and that Division 2 regions are equivalent to Zone 2 and Zone 22 regions.
In both Canada and the United States, efforts have been made to change codes and standards to allow use of the zone classification system, for new installations, and for reclassifying existing facilities. However, getting users to apply these will not be easy. As part of the study, VDC surveyed North American users on the hazardous region categorizations in which they are using intrinsically safe protection methods, and where they expect to be using these in 2006. The results, as summarized below, show that a very small share of applications are expected to shift to zone classifications. In addition, it appears that many of the zone applications indicated were for use in areas outside of North America. The only zone usage that could be identified for certain in North America from the survey was by some petrochemical firms in Canada. Some other users indicated that they would likely have zone applications in the future, but were unable to quantify the extent.
Current and Projected Hazardous Area Categorizations in North American Where Intrinsically Safe Equipment is Used
(Percent of Hazardous Regions Identified by Users)
A) Currently
Zones 0, 1, 2: 9%
Division 1: 40%
Division 2: 51%
B) Expected in 2006
Zones 0, 1, 2: 10%
Division 1: 38%
Division 2: 52%
**************************************************
To view the entire press release including charts go to
Http://www. vdc-corp. com/industrial/press/03/pr03-24.html (http://www. vdc-corp. com/industrial/press/03/pr03-24.html)
**************************************************
Among all classes of users, it is expected that firms with production facilities in both Europe and North America will likely be early adopters of a common classification standard, as this holds the potential for having common certification procedures, thus reducing costs and time for certifications. Vendors of equipment used for intrinsically safe applications also see the advantage of reducing certification costs with a single standard, and some see reduction in product development costs.
However, among vendors of products used in intrinsically safe applications who were questioned regarding the likelihood of a worldwide hazardous region classification standard coming into being, the median response was that it could happen in 10 years, although some thought as soon as 5 years, while others expressed the view that it will never happen. Views also differ among those that expect a common standard to evolve. Some expect that the European standards will be chosen, others that it will be an amalgamation of the best of the worldwide standards (such as NEC and IEC standards).
Stated hindrances to adoption expressed by vendors included:
Contrary to interests of regional certifying agencies Differences between classification schemes of Europe and North America are large No compelling reason for end users to change North American end users do not understand zone categorizations Retraining of personnel too expensive Too costly for users in converting
STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION ORGANIZATIONS
Getting worldwide agreement on hazardous region categorizations is only one goal of those seeking harmonization of requirements. Challenges are faced in trying to establish worldwide standards for the equipment to be used in hazardous environments, and uniform certification/approval procedures for the equipment and installations.
Efforts in Europe
Among European countries there have been some significant strides made in this direction. CENELEC (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization) was established to create uniform standards, testing procedures and markings for equipment within the European Economic Community. A goal of CENELEC is to harmonize standards so that sale of such equipment between member nations will not be hindered by safety requirements. CENELEC accomplishes this harmonization by publishing the European Norms (ENs).
The member nations of CENELEC, which currently include members inside and outside of the European Union, are bound to adhere to the EN regulations. Generally, CENELEC utilizes International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards. However, in certain instances where IEC standards are considered too vague, CENELEC defines more precise requirements.
When electrical equipment is intended for use in a hazardous environment, certification is necessary. Generally, a representative sample of the equipment and a set of engineering drawings are sent to a recognized test/certification body. Once a certificate is issued, a user can safely put the equipment into service in a zone authorized by certification. Third party certification agencies exist in each CENELEC member country, which approve products to EN standards. A manufacturer is free to choose any of these to certify the equipment.
On July 1st 2003, the Atmosphères Explosibles (ATEX) Directive will come into force, standardizing all equipment for use in hazardous locations within the EU. After this date, all electrical and mechanical equipment that is located in hazardous environments must comply with this ATEX Directive. Meeting the ATEX directive has been on a voluntary basis since March 1996.
The ATEX Directive seeks to encourage the installation and development of new products for explosion protection outside the scope of existing EN standards, and to speed up the approval process for such equipment. The existing system for certification can be very time consuming if a manufacturer is seeking certification for intrinsically safe products that do not comply with an existing EN, but which provide an equal or greater level of safety. In these instances, the manufacturer must demonstrate to an approval test lab that the equipment meets the relevant standards and must wait for a draft certificate to return from all the approved test labs in the EU.
Under the ATEX Directive, the usual certificate of conformity is eliminated because the manufacturer is responsible for documenting and certifying the equipment. The safety levels are not limited to ENs, and equipment that does not comply with ENs can be 'certified' by a test lab. The ATEX directive allows performance testing of products instead of testing production plants and regulating construction standards. Products that will be installed in a Zone 0 or Zone 1 environment will still have to be tested by a third party and will require a documented quality system by the manufacturer. The only markings necessary for products approved by the ATEX Directive will be the CE mark and the manufacturer's declaration of conformity.
Hindrances
In terms of equipment standards, testing requirements, and equipment markings there are still considerable differences between North American, IEC and CENELEC. Between just Canada and the USA there are still several differences in the same areas. Both Canada and the United States have changed codes and standards to harmonize with zone classification systems approved by the IEC. However, Canada and the USA have moved in different directions. Canada, the USA, CENELEC and the IEC, for example, have four different marking systems for equipment approved for intrinsically safe applications. Location testing requirements differ between the IEC, Canada, CENELEC and the IEC. North American location requirements might not approve the same equipment that is approved under the IEC.
IEC requirements and CENELEC standards are still in disagreement in several places. A North American manufacturer, which obtains approval for IEC Zone 1, does not necessarily have approval for installation in Europe according to the CENELEC standards. Further complicating matters, North American products would still have to satisfy local construction specifications and gain approval for the CE mark, which satisfies electromagnetic compatibility (EMC).
North American Effort
Several organizations in North America are actively working to overcome these and other hindrances to worldwide harmonization. UL and CSA are conducting bi-national efforts at harmonization and CANENA (Council for Harmonization of Electrotechnical Standardization of North America) is making a tri-national effort towards harmonization. In addition, ISA, the IEEE and NFPA are making their own contributions to harmonization of the North American standards for hazardous environments. Also, NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) will probably act as a catalyst to make standards and practices more uniform over the coming years, just as the EEC had done in Europe.
The ATEX directive provides an opportunity to address the differences between IEC and CENELEC, and to close the gap with new North American standards. Within North America much can be done towards creating uniformity in the relevant standards and marking practices. In turn, this would make CENELEC's task easier in accommodating North American practices. There is real potential over the next few years for standards and approval requirements to become more clear, uniform and harmonized. However, just as with harmonizing hazardous region categorizations, it remains to be seen how these changes will affect actual practices of end user, whether the various approval and certification bodies will act in the interests of free trade, and the actions vendors will take in the face of such changes.
ABOUT THE STUDY
The VDC study "European and North American Markets For Intrinsically Safe Equipment" provides markets size, segmentation, and forecasts for intrinsically safe distributed/remote I/O, intrinsic safety barriers, and field instruments used in intrinsically safe applications. Market segmentation and forecasts are provided for Europe and North America, by consuming industries, and by intrinsically safe networks/buses. Market segmentations for the base year are provided for the hazardous environment classifications where the equipment is used, and channels of distribution for the products.
The study includes results of an extensive investigation throughout Europe and North America into user needs and perspectives regarding intrinsically safe products. Included are findings relative to usage of various alternative means of hazardous environment protection, expected trends in hazardous region classifications, in methods of I/O implementation for intrinsic safety applications, and in methods of purchase of these products (as components or as part of intrinsically safe systems). Key product and vendor selection criteria are identified.
Discussion is provided on certification standards, approval procedures and categorization systems for the application of intrinsic safety methods in Europe and North America. An assessment is made of the efforts to harmonize the various standards, approval procedures and marking systems that exist both inside Europe and throughout the world. The impact of these efforts on product designs and future competition is discussed.
An analysis was conducted on competitors currently in the market and the likelihood of new entrants. Partnerships and alliances are examined, along with the impact of new technologies. Vendor market shares are provided for the products, with rankings of the leading suppliers in the major consuming industries, separately for Europe and North America.
The study provides strategies and recommendations on how vendors in each product category can enhance their market positions on a global scale. These cover product offerings, product characteristics and features, targeting consuming industries and regional markets, meeting safety classification needs, channels of distribution, promotion, pricing, buyer education, service, alliances, mergers and acquisitions, and other success factors.
STUDY SOURCE
Venture Development Corporation is a technology research and management consulting firm serving the worldwide electronics industry. It was founded in 1971 by graduates of the Harvard Business School and MIT. VDC offers in-depth market research, as well as custom strategic planning and consulting services in the areas of industrial automation, instrumentation, electronic components, computers and peripherals, communications, office equipment, and consumer electronics.
**************************************************
Report Availability
Http://www. vdc-corp. com/industrial/annual/02/br02-06.html (http://www. vdc-corp. com/industrial/annual/02/br02-06.html)
**************************************************
For further information about the "European and North American Markets For Intrinsically Safe Equipment", contact:
Jim Taylor, Group Manager
Jimt@vdc-corp. com
Marc Regberg, Senior Vice President
Msr@vdc-corp. com
Join the VDC mailing list to receive future updates at: http://www. vdc-corp. com/subscriptions (http://www. vdc-corp. com/subscriptions)
