Search

Ground-fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs), ESPEcially class A GFCIs, have been instrumental in reducing electrocution. A trinational North American standard governs the testing and certification requirements for class A GFCIs in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. However, the standard governing the requirements for special-purpose GFCIs (SPGFCIs), which include GFCI classes C, D, and E, is defined only in the United States. On the other hand, installation requirements for GFCIs in Canada and the United States are defined in Part I of the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) and National Electrical Code (NEC), respectively. The certification and installation requirements for GFCIs have evolved through time. This article covers their development. The physiological effect of current, the theory of operation, and various types of GFCIs are explained. Finally, GFCI application issues and the effect of frequency on the operation of GFCIs are discussed.

Ground-fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCIs), especially Class A GFCIs, have been instrumental in reducing electrocution. A tri-national North American standard governs the testing and certification requirements for Class A GFCIs in Canada, US, and Mexico. However, the standard governing the requirements for special-purpose GFCIs (SPGFCIs), which include GFCI Classes C, D and E, is only defined in the US. On the other hand, installation requirements for GFCIs in Canada and the US are defined in Part I of the Canadian Electrical Code (CE Code) and the National Electrical Code (NEC) respectively.Both the certification and installation requirements for GFCIs have evolved overtime. This paper covers the evolution of these requirements. The physiological effect of current, theory of operation and various types of GFCIs are explained. Finally, GFCIs application issues and the effect of frequency on the operation of GFCIs are discussed.

The 2015 Edition of the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) [1] is taking one step closer to the rest of the world and one step further from the US National Electrical Code (NEC) [2]. For decades, both the CEC and NEC have used the term "Class" to identify the various types of hazardous materials. The 23rd edition of the CEC has removed the term "Class" from Section 18 and replaced it with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Zone system. Class I, which was changed in 1998 to include Zones, becomes simply Zones 0, 1 and 2. Class II and Class III were merged to become Zones 20, 21 and 22. Figure I shows the introduction of hazardous location requirements into the CEC. All new construction must use the new system for area classification. The legacy "Class" and "Division" system was relocated to Appendix J. The CEC does allow for continued use of the Class/Division System in existing facilities. However, all new facilities must use the Zone System for all Explosive Atmosphere s. This change does not prevent the use of Class/Division equipment in the Zone System. Tables were added that identify the types of Class/Division electrical equipment that can be used in the various Zones designated locations. The CEC approach differs considerably from the NEC. Although the NEC contains a variation of the IEC full system in Article 505 and Article 506, it permits the user to select either the Class/Division or Class/Zone system. This paper will explain the changes to the CEC and highlights the differences between it, the IEC system and the NEC.

The use of electrical conduit seals to prevent the release of an explosion from an explosion-proof enclosure and to minimize the passage of flammable vapor and gas migration to an ignition source is as prevalent today as it was yesterday in the petrochemical industry. With the harmonization of international standards and recent equipment advancements, options are available to reduce the use of conduit seals for a more reliable, safe, and maintainable installation. The harmonization of the standards is reviewed, specifically on the International Electrotechnical Commission, National Electrical Code, and Canadian Electrical Code requirements for equipment in hazardous locations. Electrical conduit seal condition data from a 30-year-old petrochemical facility are provided, to illustrate that the threat of gas migration at a facility is real. The collection of these data was achieved by applying new devices allowing for the removal of the conduit seals. An overview of this application and how it was achieved is provided. The outlook on the future development with equipment rated for hazardous locations to reduce conduit seal requirements is explored.

This paper explores the various standards and requirements for the certification, selection, use, and installation of cables and cable glands used in explosive gas atmospheres throughout the world. International and North American requirements for cables and cable glands will be examined and compared. In North America, the National Electrical Code (NEC) and Canadian Electrical Code, Part I (CEC) define the requirements for the types of cable that are permitted to be used in different hazardous (classified) locations. In North America, standards exist for certifying cables for use in hazardous locations. These standards have now evolved to allow for additional cable types beyond metal clad (MC) and TECK 90 cables that are primarily used. In Canada, a new edition (2018) of the Hazardous Location Cable and Cable Gland standard has been published, and this should help to clarify the intended range of cable types that could potentially be approved for hazardous locations in Canada. In the United States (US), the NEC defines the types of cables that can be used in hazardous locations, and UL 2225 provides the means to approve Hazardous Location (HL) cables for the US. The International Electro-Technical Commission (IEC) on the other hand does not require cables to be specifically approved for explosive gas or dust atmospheres and instead only provides guidance within IEC 60079–14 on the selection of cables. In all jurisdictions, cable glands for use in explosive gas atmospheres are required to be approved for the location they are being installed in or with a method of protection suitable for the location that they are being installed in, but there are differences in the various standards and requirements.

The markings for hazardous area equipment present a challenge to professionals dealing in the international engineering arena. The markings can be confusing, and with standards continually revised, can be a challenge to keep up-to-date. The introduction of equipment protection levels and ATEX categories have made markings even more challenging to those who are not familiar with the IEC requirements or the ATEX European Union directives. ATEX refers to two separate (but related) European Union (EU) Directives: 2014/34/EU (replaced 94/9/EC) — Equipment Directive — primarily concerned with trade and the manufacture and sale of Ex equipment, and 1999/92/EC — Use Directive — primarily concerned with the safety of workers and applies to the Classification of Hazardous Areas and the correct selection, installation, inspection and maintenance of Ex equipment. Though markings for equipment certified under IEC requirements, the ATEX directive [1], Articles 505/506 of the US National Electrical Code (NEC) [2], and Section 18 of the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) [3] may all seem similar, there are differences between them. The purpose of this paper is to 1) identify the Equipment Protection Levels and what they mean, 2) identify the ATEX categories and how they relate to the EPLs and 3) examine these different marking systems.

This article highlights those improvements and serves as a short tutorial into current international codes for the implementation of sometimes hazardous electrical components. It focuses on North American engineers working on non-U.S. projects. Included is a general subject overview and in particular, a discussion of similarities and differences between the codes. IEEE recommended the practice of 303 auxiliary devices for rotating electrical machines in Class I, Division 2 and Zone 2 locations. It is now expanded to include the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), and Standards Australia/New Zealand (AN/NZS) regulations

When a petrochemical installation requires the use of Class I, Division 1 electric motors for hazardous areas, end users in North America must find motors certified to the applicable national standards for such equipment. In North America, National Fire Protection Association 70 (NFPA 70 or National Electrical Code or NEC) and Canadian electrical code electric motors with explosion-proof certification are not unusual for low voltage installations, but are uncommon when larger power medium voltage applications are required. Medium voltage motors with Class I, Division 2 suitability are common, but are hard to find with an explosion-proof certification. Petrochemical applications for medium voltage motors also commonly require use of the American Petrochemical Institute Standard 541 (API 541). Further, some applications additionally require use of an adjustable speed drive to vary the speed of the driven equipment to fit operational considerations. In one recent instance, when an end user attempted to specify a 1500-kW motor with the combination of explosion-proof certification, adjustable speed suitability, and API 541 features/testing, no manufacturer in the world had such a motor available. While other solutions were considered, the end user preferred the straightforward approach that a Class I, Division 1 motor offered and decided to work with a manufacturer of motors meeting International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) flameproof standards to satisfy the combination of all application requirements for this installation. There are many differences between the NEC and IEC systems governing hazardous areas and motor certifications are not interchangeable. The end user's engineers had to learn and understand the differences between these systems and this case study addresses many of the technical requirements, issues, and effort required to successfully deliver this motor to the project.

The use of electrical conduit seals to prevent the release of an explosion from an explosion-proof enclosure and to minimize the passage of flammable vapor and gas migration to an ignition source is as prevalent today as it was yesterday in the petrochemical industry. With the harmonization of international standards and recent equipment advancements, options are available to reduce the use of conduit seals for a more reliable, safe, and maintainable installation. The harmonization of the standards is reviewed, specifically on the International Electrotechnical Commission, National Electrical Code, and Canadian Electrical Code requirements for equipment in hazardous locations. Electrical conduit seal condition data from a 30-year-old petrochemical facility are provided, to illustrate that the threat of gas migration at a facility is real. The collection of these data was achieved by applying new devices allowing for the removal of the conduit seals. An overview of this application and how it was achieved is provided. The outlook on the future development with equipment rated for hazardous locations to reduce conduit seal requirements is explored.

Changes to the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) (1998) and National Electrical Code (NEC) (1996 and 1998), while progressive, are only first steps. The updates allow the use of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) classification system and products. For the purposes of this article, the CEC is used as a starting point. This article examines a combination of the "best practices" from Canada, Europe, and the United States, which relate to petrochemical installations. The optimal design for a facility is not as simple as exchanging products. It is more like rethinking conventional design practices. Area classification, wiring methods, equipment placement, and product design are discussed. The right combination of the two wiring systems is not as simple as applying IEC products to a class-division-type design. While the modular style of IEC products may offer greater flexibility, traditional North American products are readily available and more familiar to most designers. However, since North America, and perhaps to a greater extent Canada, is in the unique position of taking advantage of the best of both systems, the best design is likely to be found in a combination of the two. In Alberta, Canada, regulators granted permission for the use of products approved to standards other than CSA International in selected facilities to accommodate the "combination" design.

Most oil exploration and subsequent refining operations take place outside the continental areas of North America and Europe. There, the National Electrical Code (NEC), Canadian Electrical Code (CEC), and CENELEC standards are not the de facto codes and standards to which firms must adhere. There is limited control over where equipment is purchased, with the taut policy "to purchase from anyone that can meet the specifications." As a result, specifications become extremely critical since they are the primary means of controlling safety, functionality, maintenance, and reliability of the installation. When designing or specifying to IEC standards, there are several major areas to consider that contrast from NEC: the use of cabling systems, sealing methods, enclosures, lighting practices, and intrinsically safe circuits.

Both the United States National Electrical Code (NEC) and the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) provide special rules for installing electrical equipment in hazardous (classified) locations. Hazardous locations are those locations where fire or explosion hazards may exist due to flammable gases or vapors, flammable liquids, combustible dust, or easily ignitible fibers or flyings. Only Class I materials (gases and vapors) are within the scope of American Petroleum Institute (API) RP500 and RP505. These recommended practices offer those in the petroleum industry an opportunity to standardize area classification drawings-both for drawings using the Division method of area classification and for drawings using the Zone method of area classification. Good engineering judgment must be used with RP500 and RP505, but guidelines provided should minimize differences of classifications by qualified individuals classifying the same or similar locations. This article provides an overview of the two recommended practices including outlines of tables of content, but primarily emphasising the substantive changes and additions.

Modifications to the National Electrical Code (NEC) and Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) have created changes and complications in the marking and approvals of new explosion-protected products. Instead of making the practice of consolidating approvals for globalized products simpler, Canada and the US have gone in different directions. This, in turn, may confuse many who manufacture, specify, install, and inspect explosion-protected equipment. Europe adopted the ATEX Directive, which creates a new method of approving explosion-protected equipment for Europe. Previously, equipment and materials had to pass equipment and construction standards that limited new ideas and techniques. Now, due to the ATEX Directive, manufacturers have the opportunity to build and test explosion-protected equipment to the new Directive 94-3, which is based on performance testing. This new system may revolutionize the hazardous area industry as well as trade throughout Europe by freeing up manufacturers to use new inventive types of equipment and construction standards.

The paper that is being proposing to present will describe, in detail, the Certification process of Auto Body Shop-style paint spray booths (PSB's), found in almost all auto body shops, and the differences between those PSB's that carry a third party certification will differ greatly from the PSB's that do not carry any such certification. It will also describe the methods that previously certified booths will need to be re-inspected, and will also identify the common methods in which a certified booth can be made to operate such that it is in violation of applicable codes and standards, such as those written by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), OSHA, and even state and local codes. This paper will be written to be of interest to industrial risk insurers with customers in the automotive field, electrical, mechanical, and fire inspectors, codes compliance officers, certification authorities, and even manufacturers of this equipment and within the vicinity of this equipment. The paper and presentation will describe the common pitfalls found during our evaluations, and will provide evidence as to why the safety standards have been written to address these very special products, which have warranted their own article in both the National Electrical Code, and the Canadian Electrical Code. Also described in the article will be the different types of hazards — electrical, mechanical, and physical — that are typically found in paint spray booths, mixing rooms, and related operations. This paper will not be a complete certification checklist, but will outline the basic premises used by Intertek in the certification of paint spray booths.

Both the National Electrical Code (NEC) [1] and the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) [2] contain sealing requirements to prevent the migration of flammable fluids from travelling through wiring systems to non-hazardous locations. This paper will review the need for, the intent and the application of these code requirements. Case studies of incidents will be discussed to demonstrate that significant hazards exist, and how they are effectively mitigated by the code requirements. In addition, product standards can be used to meet the intent of the sealing requirements. CSA C22.2 No. 30 Explosion Proof Enclosures for use in Class I Hazardous Locations [3], and ANSI/ISA 12.27.01 Requirements for Process Sealing Between Electrical Systems and Flammable or Combustible Process Fluids [4] currently exist and IEEE PAR 1673 Requirements for Conduit and Cable Seals for Field Connected Wiring to Equipment in Petroleum and Chemical Industry Exposed to Pressures Above 1.5 kilopascals (0.22 psi) [5] is under development.

A new Canadian code, the Objective Based Industrial Electrical Code (OBIEC) is being developed by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Industry initiated the request to develop the OBIEC because the existing prescriptive Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) [1] was restrictive, was not keeping pace with advancing technologies and was slow to change. The Objective Based Industrial Electrical Code and the OBI EC Safety Management System - Requirements (OBIEC-SMS) will facilitate greater flexibility in engineering design, product selection, installation methodology and day-to-day operations and maintenance for Canadian owners/users of industrial facilities. Synergies between OBIEC and major global electrical standards will create a foundation for harmonizing global standards. Safety will be improved by mandating documented management processes and improved inspection requirements. The OBIEC and OBIEC SMS standards are being developed in a consensus process, as defined for Standards Development Organizations by the Standards Council of Canada. This development process has been underway over the last four years and will have input from all impacted stakeholders including the public.

Under the auspices of the standards subcommittee within the Petroleum and Chemical Industry Committee (PCIC), IEEE recommended practice 303 auxiliary devices for rotating electrical machines in Class I, Division 2 and Zone 2 Locations has been radically updated to address worldwide requirements. Originally US based, this document is now expanded to include the Canadian Electrical Code, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) and Standards Australia/New Zealand (AN/NZS) regulations. This paper highlights those improvements and serves as a short tutorial into current international codes for the implementation of "sometimes" hazardous electrical components, and is focused for North American engineers working on non-US projects. Included is a general subject overview and in particular, a discussion of similarities and differences between the codes.

This paper describes the development of an objective based industrial electrical code (OBIEC) in Canada, which is intended for use by qualified industrial companies. The concept is to provide a "road map" for owners, engineers and system/equipment integrators for design, equipment selection, installation, operation and maintenance of electrical systems. At the request of a group of industrial users, the canadian standards association (CSA) has begun development of an objective based industrial electrical code (OBIEC) for industrial installations. This code will be in parallel to the existing prescriptive canadian electrical code (CEC) and will apply only to industrial corporations who are qualified to use it and have demonstrated those qualifications to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction. It is a voluntary code, and industrial companies would apply to the regulatory authority for the right to use it. Inspection and audit requirements will continue to be set by the authority having jurisdiction.

Summary form only given as follows. With technology rapidly advancing, new developments in sensing and process control have increased the number of products using intrinsically safe or nonincendive circuits as their protection technique for hazardous (classified) locations as defined in the National Electrical Code (NEC), Canadian Electrical Code (CEC), and IEC/CENELEC installation requirements. With lower installation and maintenance costs, these protection techniques have found increased favor in applications traditionally requiring explosion proof/flameproof devices. Though these concepts have been in use in industry for many years, some confusion still exists in regards to the installation of these devices. Following the proper installation requirements is important to the overall safety of intrinsically safe and nonincendive circuits. The incorrect installation of intrinsically safe and nonincendive circuits can result in a system that could become ignition capable. Therefore, care must be exercised when determining the suitability of the combinations of associated apparatus and field devices. Furthermore, it is necessary to follow the applicable requirements in the NEC, CEC, and IEC/CENELEG installation requirements concerning grounding, wiring, separation and identification. The control drawing provided with each piece of equipment provides the necessary information to determine the acceptability of the installation.

The paper describes how North American and European installation methods and equipment certified to North American and European based standards were blended on a large capital project to achieve enhanced safety while at the same time seeing significant capital and installation cost reductions. The Zone area classification system was used. This enabled the use of equipment certified to either Zone or Division hazardous location standards. Working with the local regulatory authority, traditional mindsets were challenged to enable the use of practices proven in various installation codes, with the fundamental principle of achieving equal or better safety compared to the existing code. The major areas that are discussed are: re-certifying Division type equipment to IEC standards; using European installation concepts for North American certified cables; challenging specific Canadian Electrical Code rules; and costs savings over traditional approaches are quantified.

Electrical heat tracing has matured in the last 30 years to be the preferred method of both freeze protection and process temperature maintenance. In most applications. The IEEE has provided guidance for the design and installation of heat tracing through recommended practices and standards such as those sanctioned by the IEEE Power Engineering Society (PES) and IEEE Industry Applications Society (IAS). Changes in product, design, control and monitoring, and approvals all have impacted the evolution of the engineering topic of electrical heat tracing. In this panel discussion we highlight the available standards and recommended practices with a focus on power generation processes. Hopper heating, instrument heating and special applications are also discussed. The IEC standards being modeled by the CEC (Canadian Electrical Code) and NEC (USA National Electrical Code), with acceptance of the Zone classification system give the designer more opportunity to optimize the heat tracing system. The NESC (National Electrical Safety Code) also plays a part in the power generation side of the equation. Economic analyses of comparisons of steam tracing and electrical tracing as well as advancements in monitoring and control add another dimension to the situation.

The approach to the classification of hazardous locations, and the design and installation of electrical equipment used in these locations, is quite different in North America to that of a number of other developed nations. For a variety of reasons, many equipment users in the United States and Canada desire to have the ability to choose between the existing Class, and Division rated equipment, and wiring methods and/or the international rated equipment and wiring methods, in their facilities. The addition of Article 505 to the 1996 National Electrical Code (NEC), and similar changes in process to the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) to introduce the International Electrotechnical Commission's (IEC) system of area classification is the result of years of effort. Given the dissimilarity between Canada and the United States' electrical codes and standards writing processes, and the attitude of each group concerning the integration of the new system, there will be differences between the two countries for some period of time. The authors review the differences in the processes, provide a comparison of the systems and conclude with a look to the future after the full impact of the new system in each code is realized.

The objective of this paper is to clarify "series-ratings" for fuse/breaker and breaker/breaker combinations. The paper compares "series-rated" systems to "selectively coordinated" and "fully-rated" systems, and references the appropriate Underwriters Laboratory standards and National Electrical Code clauses. Appropriate reference is also made to Canadian Standards Association standards and the Canadian Electrical Code. The UL and NEC requirements are extensive and relate to the performance of the individual protective devices, to the combination performance, and to the marking/labeling of the final enclosures. The inadequacies of the up-over-and-down method for assessing the series-rating capability of fuse/breaker combinations are discussed, and combination testing is emphasized. Years of experience have demonstrated that series-ratings provide an economic method of gaining the application advantages of molded case circuit breakers. The combinations are strictly evaluated and controlled with the consequence that series-ratings provide an excellent system-application.

This paper takes a new look at the -48 V power distribution widely used for providing power to telecommunication equipment, and at the methodology used for grounding and bonding of both the power system and the powered telecommunication system. In contrast to AC distribution, the DC distribution used in telecommunications and its associated grounding are not extensively covered in electrical codes such as the National Electrical Code and the Canadian Electrical Code, or in international standards such as IEC 364. The paper identifies analogies and differences between the experience-based, codified requirements for single-phase DC systems and the evolving requirements for DC powering and system grounding used in telecommunications. It suggests that the harmonization efforts of evolving national, regional and global standards for these DC systems could benefit from a critical examination of the proven principles developed for AC distribution. >

Despite the substantial effort brought to bear on the problem of hazardous locations, the effect of corrosion on traditional metallic materials can often undermine the integrity of the system. Most specialized techniques used to provide additional corrosion protection are cumbersome and often ineffective. The use of nonmetallics in hazardous locations offers significant benefits. However, this concept has rarely been used in traditional National Electrical Code (NEC) and Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) approaches toward hazardous locations. Technology developed through the application of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards has more fully exploited the advantages of nonmetallics in hazardous locations, specifically when corrosive environments are present. The authors discuss the inherent benefits of combining IEC technology with nonmetallics in NEC applications. >

Modifications to the National Electrical Code (NE/sup (R)/) and Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) have created changes and complications in the marking and approvals of new explosion-protected products. Instead of making the practice of consolidating approvals for globalized products simpler, Canada and the US have gone in different directions. This, in turn, will confuse all those who manufacture, specify, install and inspect explosion protected equipment. Europe has adopted the ATEX Directive, which creates a new method of approving explosion-protected equipment for Europe. Previously, equipment and materials had to pass equipment and construction standards which limited new ideas and techniques. Now, due to the ATEX Directive, manufacturers have the opportunity to build and test explosion protected equipment to the new Directive 94-9, which is based on performance testing. This new system may revolutionize the hazardous area industry as well as trade throughout Europe by freeing up manufacturers to use new inventive types of equipment and construction standards.

The objective of this paper is to clarify "series-ratings" for fuse/breaker and breaker/breaker combinations. The paper compares "series-rated" protection systems to "selectively coordinated" and "fully-rated" systems, and references the appropriate Underwriters Laboratory standards and National Electrical Code clauses. Appropriate reference is also made to Canadian Standards Association standards and the Canadian Electrical Code. The UL and NEC requirements are extensive and relate to the performance of the individual protective devices, to the combination performance, and to the marking/labeling of the final enclosures. The inadequacies of the up-over-and-down method for assessing the series-rating capability of fuse/breaker combinations are discussed, and combination testing is emphasized. Years of experience have demonstrated that series-ratings provide an economic method of gaining the application advantages of circuit breakers. The combinations are strictly evaluated and controlled with the consequence that series-ratings provide an excellent system-application. >

It has become widely realised that fault values on low-voltage systems often greatly exceed the interrupting rating (10,000 amperes) of the cartridge fuses at present recognised by the National Electrical Code in the United States and the Canadian Electrical Code in Canada.

WHEN POLES are jointly used by power and communication utilities, or the two types of plant are on separate pole lines but are in situations of close proximity, the possibility of accidental contact between the two types of plant must be recognized. The first line of defense against such occurrences is to minimize the probability of contact by means of adequate construction and clearance standards, as covered by the National Electrical Safety Code in the United States or the Canadian Electrical Code in Canada.

The Canadian Standards Association is a non-profit organization dedicated to the writing of Standards, and Certification of products to these Standards. Although CSA Standards are voluntary, with reference to telephone equipment power supplies compliance to the applicable Standards is made mandatory by the Canadian Federal and Provincial Governments. These are electrical safety Standards addressing fire and shock hazards. The Canadian Electrical Code Part I contains requirements for the installation of electrical equipment, and in U.S.A. this corresponds to the National Electrical Code. There are CSA Standards which contain construction and test requirements for the telephone power supplies. Some of the items that are covered by the Standard are: - Enclosure: Openings permitting access to live electrical parts, openings permitting material to fall out of the enclosure, material flammability, mechanical strength. - Mounting method. - Wiring methods. - Creepage and clearance distances between live parts of opposite polarity. There are additional requirements of uninterruptible power supplies that incorporate a static transfer switch. Since these devices contain two ac power sources (i.e. ac line and an inverter) there is a danger that the two sources may inadvertently be interconnected due to a component failure. Tests are performed to verify that should a static switch leg fail "ON" power cannot backfeed and energize circuits which are not supposed to be live. There are also requirements unique to inverters specifying the waveshape and output voltage.