arpadveress recently I participated at a meeting (within EU) where an Ex (well known) supplier tried to convince the enduser to choose his IECEx certified product (electrical), because its Ex certificate covers much bigger area worldwide than any ATEX certification.
ok, in the EU the ATEX compliance is mandatory, not any other Ex certification can replace it.
from commercial point of view his statement is fully understandable, but not legally.
You might also like
Hand sanitizer (home made) vs Ex
As you’re no doubt aware, bottles of hand sanitizer (Purell, Wet Ones,
Ex assembly
assembly of Ex Equipment(s) results in an assembly that creates a need for additional assessment that is not already completely covered by the
individual equipment certificates.
Waiting time before entering any Ex site
Lorries, tankers, trains… Min 30 mins, and even if so reduced speed
Hazardous Area Classification is about…
…normal operation with worst conditions. iec 60079-10-1 says: “Catastrophic failures As far
The ATEX system is a Regulatory system not a Certification System. The IECEx scheme is Certification System and has a higher level of integrity and can be trusted more by the end user.
In New Zealand we openly accept equipment meeting the ATEX Regime under specific controls but to be honest we are finding that we are being used as a dumping ground for ATEX equipment no longer accepted in Europe so as an end user we are now getting to a point where we will only advise our clients to use and trust product meeting the IECEx scheme because of how we are being treated by European Manufacturers.
The OECD Rules prohibit the dumping of product and it has been seen over the years that Europe is quick to use that as an argument to keep other countries products out of there market but when it is done to other parts of the world where Europe sees us as being subservient to them its OK to Dump Junk on us.
It is noted that the map does not indicate that product certified in accordance with the IEC Ex Scheme is able to be used in the US and Canada as an equivalent to their own system as long as the installation meets the IEC Standards.
If this is reflected on the map it shows that ATEX is nothing more that a Non Tariff Trade Barrier. It becomes worse when the work that the Technical People from Europe have put into the development of the IEC Standards means nothing in there own countries.
At present there is only one level playing field and that is the IECEx Scheme.
Many say IECEx is more black and white
The question is: “- Why should an end user choose his equipment just because its “IECEx scheme” covers much bigger area worldwide??”
End users just need the equipment that satisfies their needs.
Another question could be: “- Why do end users need (expensive) “certification schemes”?” Probably, just a third party certification is enough, isn’t it?
In fact, end users need to take care with labels such as “high level of integrity”: https://www.atexdb.eu/atex_article/is-certification-of-led-luminaires-causing-higher-risks-on-ex-areas