To get some insight into the upcoming changes and to gauge how the various actors are doing in terms of compliance, the SA Instrumentation and Control (SAI&C) team hosted a round-table with participants representing consultants, suppliers, an Approved Test Laboratory (ATL), the Industrial Instrumentation Group (IIG), the S A Flameproof Association (SAFA) and the Society for Automation, Instrumentation, Measurement and Control (SAIMC).
Participants
The outcome is summarised in two articles:
* ARP 0108: What you need to know
* ARP 0108: What you need to do.
This is the first of those two articles.
Health warning and disclaimer
The initials ‘ARP’ stand for Aanbevole/Recommended Practice; however, there is nothing optional about compliance with ARP 0108: it is a legal requirement.
This article is based on the participants’ interpretation of the current and impending legislation and does not remove the requirement for readers to fully familiarise themselves with the contents of all relevant and associated legislation and to keep abreast of changes in the legislative environment.
Background
AA: Gary, could you give us some history on the various editions of ARP 0108 and how the C&I community has been involved?
GF: Originally, SANS 10108 included both technical and legal matters pertaining to hazardous areas. In later years these two aspects were split to conform to international standards’ conventions and hence the introduction of ARP 0108.
Edition 1 of ARP 0108 (ARP 0108: 2005) was generally accepted and used only in the mining industry. ARP 0108: 2007, which is the current edition, came as a big surprise to many players, especially participants in the surface industries, who had less involvement in the derivation of this ARP. There were a lot of queries and misunderstandings about supplier and end user responsibilities. Consequently, SAFA held some workshops and did some lobbying with the regulators, resulting in a new revision of ARP 0108 which should be released imminently.
What’s new?
AA: How will this new edition differ from ARP 0108:2007?
GF: I think the biggest change that we’re going to see is an increase in IA certificate validity from one year to three years for imported EPA equipment. This takes away a huge operational overhead and removes quite a lot of compliance costs for importers.
There are also sections in the new ARP providing clarity over previously grey areas: FAQs, definitions of words and wording that have been amended to clarify the intent of various clauses of the ARP.
Why local certification?
VM: The initial perception of members of the SAIMC is that local certification of EPA just adds another layer of cost and impacts competitiveness. It duplicates certification requirements in the country of original manufacture. End-users pay double because they’re paying for professionals in Europe to certify the equipment and then paying for local certification and local recertification every so many years in South Africa.
I recently heard that in Canada each province requires its own certification. And that makes me sceptical about this whole situation. It looks like a job creation process and because it’s safety related, people milk the situation.
Why can’t we just accept an international certification like IECEx?
AA: I also started with that perspective when I wrote our earlier articles on ARP 0108 in October 2008, particularly in terms of the competitive environment because we’re all playing in the global village. But I see that the Australian regulations are similar to our own. They use IECEx certification as a starting point, but still require local certification on top of that.
GF: Well, even in Australia there are differences between the states. For instance New South Wales accepts IECEx, where the other states require local certification.
When you bring a product into South Africa, you want to make sure that it meets our national standards and is going to be safe. That’s the basic rationale for local certification.
South Africa’s zoning and classifications closely align with those of Europe, Australia and New Zealand. But even so, an expanded European community and the existence of more countries that are now able to issue ATEX certificates means that there are still question marks around the validity of some of those certificates. If the ATL gets an ATEX certificate from PTB, SGS Baseefa or other leading authority, which it trusts, it may assume that these certification bodies have applied the standards correctly. If it gets an ATEX certificate from an organisation it has never heard of, it may request more information and inspect the product design and manufacture more closely before determining whether to issue a local certificate.
FdT: We find that it can become quite complex where there is no IECEx, ATEX or equivalent certificate, as is often the case for Chinese-sourced EPA. Firstly, we have to have the Chinese certificate translated and determine the Chinese standard to which the apparatus has been designed and manufactured. Even if the translation makes sense, and even though the Chinese standard may be a good standard, there is no direct equivalence between the Chinese standard and the South African standard. Clause for clause, you can’t say their GB3836 part 4 standard complies with our standards. Then we have to request full circuit diagrams and the whole documentation package. In the end we often have to perform a new type approval based on a sample, because the language issue means we are not confident with the Chinese certification.
IECEx certification certainly helps the ATL. We have seen Chinese EPA which has IECEx certification. If you can get an IECEx certificate then you can go to the IEC’s website and confirm that it is a valid certificate. Then we accept it gladly without any issues.
GF: Well, you still need to validate it. There are loads of issues within the IECEx and ATEX environments. The ATL takes the IECEx or ATEX certificate and determines whether the product meets our standard and whether it is safe.
For US-source imports there is also an issue. The American zoning and classifications don’t match ours. So it’s not easy to take their products and legitimately apply them to our environment without some detailed knowledge, which is the ATLs value add.
FdT: That’s right. In fact, because there is no direct equivalence between US area classifications and South African area classifications, we often have to resort to type testing of American products in order to issue an IA certificate.
IA certificates and validity
AA: The new proposals, which we’re hoping will be adopted, mandate a three-year IA certificate validity for imported EPA and a 10-year validity for locally manufactured or type tested equipment. What does this validity mean? Must every loop containing a piece of imported EPA be recertified every three years?
GF: Importers lobbied for a five-year validity for IA certificates on imported equipment but it looks like that validity will be extended from one to three years and the validity for locally manufactured or type tested equipment will be 10 years.
EPA and loops are certified at time of installation. Imported EPA is covered by the IA certificate at time of import and this covers the product for its installed life. Installed loops do not need to be recertified, nor does in-service EPA covered by an existing certificate need to be recertified. Once an importer has an IA certificate valid for three years, he can import product, provided the product design and overseas certification it is based on have not changed, for the validity period of the certificate. Sections A.10 and I.9 to I.12 in the new edition of the ARP cover the updating of installed loops and certification requirements.
There are two things that make an imported product okay for use in an Ex area. One is generally by design and that’s the ATEX or IECEx or equivalent certificate. That means that the product is suitable for the Ex area. The second one is the QAN (quality assurance notification), which is the licensed document by the OEM who gets audited every one, two or three years, in terms of its ability to manufacture according to the certified design.
The validity period in ARP 0108 is there to track or trap any change in the ATEX or equivalent certificate and to ensure that the manufacturing facility has kept its licence updated with its notified body in order to continue manufacturing the product. Hence the local IA certification only relates to equipment at the time of import or local manufacture.
SM: Why is there such a big discrepancy between the validity of imported and locally manufactured EPA? One or three years versus 10 years seems like a really big gap?
FdT: In South Africa, the production processes of local manufacturers of EPA equipment under a Mark Scheme are regularly audited. EPA equipment not manufactured under a Mark Scheme can be batch tested by an ATL. That means that a manufacturer can manufacture without quality systems but then the lab does a detailed batch inspection on a statistically representative sample of that product. A 10-year validity period is considered justified for both these alternatives.
In terms of the validity if the IA certificate for imported equipment, it’s the responsibility of the IA certificate holder to ensure that an updated quality system certificate is submitted to the relevant ATL. So if there are changes in that OEM within the validity period of an existing IA certificate, the ATL that issued the certificate must be notified and that certificate will then be cancelled.
GF: There’s still some confusion for end-users who may buy a piece of EPA today, get an IA certificate for that product, but only install it some years later, past the validity of the covering IA certificate. But if you look at an IA certificate, it covers related product imported between two dates, it does not refer to the date of putting into service.
RM: As importers, we pushed very hard to extend the validity of these certificates. And that was related to the amount of work that was needed to maintain the records of which certificates were done when and for how long they were valid. At E+H we have a hundred and thirty-odd IA certificates. To update each of those every 12 months and to keep those records in our SAP database, because the information needs to be accessible globally, is a lot of work. To recertify every three years is manageable.
AA: So Rob, wearing your E+H cap, to comply with this ARP you need to maintain records that reflect which particular IA certificate covers which serial numbers of each make and model of EPA that you import?
RM: Exactly right, yes.
AA: And it could be that you’ll have another IA certificate for a different serial number of the same make and model because it was imported, under existing legislation, a year or more later?
RM: A year earlier, or a year later, yes.
AA: In the event of an incident at a plant, an inspector might call for a copy of an IA certificate for a particular piece of EPA. Whose responsibility is it legislatively to be able to produce that certificate? Is it the end-user (the plant owner) or is it the local importer or local manufacturer?
GF: The end-user has the right to request a copy of the IA certificate from the importer. So the importer does have some legal liability, but the end-user ultimately has the responsibility to ensure that his plant complies.
Looming recertification gridlock
FdT: As an ATL, we are worried about the looming recertification workload for all the 10-year IA certificates that have been issued. Many product certifications issued after 1998 will expire in 2015. Since 2003 about 2000 type certifications have been performed and none of those clients has contacted us to ask about recertification on upcoming expiry. And in most cases it will not be a matter of re-stamping an existing certification because those products were certified before current legislation and standards existed. New type certifications are going to have to be performed by a very limited number of intrinsically safe signatories within the two ATLs that are currently authorised to do IS approvals in South Africa.
Typically the ATLs’ turnaround on a type approval is two weeks and we foresee huge pressure from importers and local manufacturers as these certificates expire and a backlog builds.
AA: The crunch on ATLs doesn’t come from end-users or consultants. It’s only local manufacturers of EPA and importers of EPA who actually have the task of employing the ATLs to provide the IA certificates. So it’s really important to get the message out there to IIG and SAFA members that there is a deadline with potential delays looming and that they should act sooner rather than later in terms of applying for recertification of expiring 10-year validity IA certificates.
IA certificates and legitimacy
VM: Our company deals a lot with the public sector where tenders are adjudicated on a 90/10 split of price versus quality so price becomes a commanding factor. E+H is a reputable and legitimate company but if I am offered a lower cost Chinese product, how do I know the certificate I’m getting with that product is legitimate?
FdT: That’s a challenge. And we have come across certificates that have been falsified and we have also seen invalid certificates issued by ATLs.
In South Africa, the IA certificate is not yet in the public domain. Someone can contact the ATL and ask them for a certificate but technically the ATL is not allowed to give end users copies of IA certificates because they are the property of the client, the certificate holder.
RM: It’s quite possible to produce false certificates. This is a risk for the end-user. He is finally responsible for the safety of the plant and must satisfy himself that he is working with a company that he believes is reputable and is providing a valid certificate.
Is there no way to verify that a certificate that’s received by an end-user is a valid certificate?
AA: IECEx has a publicly accessible online database for certifications that they perform. You can go and check the status and validity of any particular certificate or product certification: Has the certificate expired? Is it still valid? Has the product been recertified?
Are there any initiatives in South Africa to do something similar through SANAS, SABS or any of the other participants?
Has anybody spoken to either DME or DOL about having an online database for all the certificates issued by the ATLs in South Africa?
RM: I certainly think there needs to be some kind of IA certificate traceability.
GF: I opposed the idea of a public database on the grounds that if my employer takes legal liability for and pays for the IA certificate, why should it put that into the public domain? If you buy a product from my employer you will receive a copy of the relevant certificate, but there are loads of grey importers of our products. Why should they have access to our certificates?
If you want to check the validity of a certificate, you can contact the issuing authority and ask them. There’s only a handful of ATLs issuing those certificates. You can make a phone call and validate it.
The actors
The legislators and regulators
AA: Are the regulators policing this legislation? Are inspections taking place and non-conformance notices being issued? What legislative action can be taken against end-users, manufacturers or importers who are not complying with these regulations? I’ve not seen anything in the regulations concerning the consequences and financial impact of non-compliance.
GF: There’s next to no policing of these regulations, but you can be sure that the regulators were on site the day after each of the two recent explosions in Cape Town, asking questions like: “Let’s see your documentation? Show me what you’ve done.” And then the liability kicks in.
The importers
AA: Rob, you mentioned that E+H currently has a hundred and thirty-odd IA certificates, so you’ve probably been quite rigorous in ensuring that you comply with the ARP. Would you say that E+H’s behaviour is typical of the industry, or are there some vendors who are perhaps not complying with the spirit of the ARP?
RM: I would think it’s fairly typical. I think any vendor that wants to supply into Ex environments doesn’t really have an option. We have to provide the certification. And I would not expect people to try to get around that. Vendors wouldn’t like to play with safety issues of the plant. It’s understood by most of the big reputable vendors that getting certification is a good thing. Our concern was the amount of administration and the cost of recertifying instruments annually.
GF: Some importers still do not have the necessary understanding though. For instance, I have heard some importers say that because an EPA has ATEX certification it is automatically approved for use in South Africa. But ATEX have a Category 3 certification which means it is self-certified by the manufacturer – something which isn’t allowed in South Africa. Or they claim that because an EPA has an American certification it can be rubber stamped for use in South Africa – another fallacy. So there is still some education needed.
The consultants, SIs and contractors
SM: Gary and Vinesh, where there’s a consulting engineer or a system integrator (SI) involved in either an upgrade or a greenfields project, what is the role of that party in this process? Do they have some responsibility in terms of this ARP?
VM: It depends on the contracting strategy. If it’s a design build type contract then the responsibility for provision of documentation, including IA certificates, resides with the contractor who’s actually building that plant.
If it’s designed by a consulting engineer, then the employer generally has two contracts; one with their consulting engineer and one with the contractor. In this case it would be the contractor’s responsibility to obtain the IA certificate from the EPA supplier.
GF: It may also depend on the size of the project. On small projects you might find the end-user will just get all the documentation himself.
RM: Engineers, consultants and vendors supply a function to the project but at the end of the day, the end-user is responsible for the safety of the plant. The end-user cannot bypass that responsibility.
FdT: We have found that the consultants have the knowledge to ensure that certificates are requested in a timely manner. The shortcoming that we’ve seen is with contractors. Four weeks before completion of a massive contract the contractor realises it has not applied for IA certificates on a whole bunch of imported EPA. So that puts pressure on the ATLs, who need to start digging through technical documentation and so forth and that takes time.
The end-users
AA: We have established that the professional importers and manufacturers understand the need to be compliant with these regulations, but from the other side, do the users actually know about the regulations and are they as disciplined in terms of requiring the necessary approvals and documentation from the importers or manufacturers?
GF: A lot of end-users out there are very knowledgeable on this ARP now. They ensure that they have valid IA certificates with their purchases of EPA and they check those certificates carefully.
RM: I want to agree with you in one sense and say there are a lot of very good and qualified people out there, and I also want to disagree with you and agree with Vinesh. There are some settings, such as municipal environments, that need Ex equipment but where there’s a serious lack of qualified people. Are they on top of this technology and this legislation?
VM: My personal experience is that there’s a shortage of technical expertise in the public sector and they don’t have these skills. I’m leaving now for a meeting concerning a project in a neighbouring country and I don’t believe that the client or their relevant government departments have the right skills set to correctly apply EPA.
RM: I still think that there’s a big group of users who do not understand their responsibilities under this ARP.
GF: That was one of the motivations for holding this round-table event. ARP 0108 is probably now one of the most discussed legislative documents around. At the SAFA symposium, we had almost a hundred people in Durban last year. Before that, at Monte Casino, we had over a hundred and sixty people. So there’s definitely a higher awareness.
Professional certification
AA: If an end-user employs a company like Murray and Roberts or Fluor then it trusts that there’s competency within that company, but it doesn’t necessarily know that the people who are working on its project have this specific expertise.
I know IEC have a program to certify individuals on Ex. Are there any similar initiatives in South Africa?
GF: We’re trying to get there. The IECEx CompEx programme originated from a Shell initiative in the UK. To my knowledge, Hazloc in Sasolburg is the first CompEx (Competence in Ex) certified training facility in South Africa that’s not company specific. I know Sasol has a similar internal programme.
CompEx will become a requirement in South Africa in time but it takes time to introduce competency certification for individuals.
ARP 0108: What you need to do
Look out for Part 2 of this article, ARP 0108: What you need to do, in which we pose a scenario involving the design, building and operation of plant utilising EPA and discuss some of the steps involved for compliance.
To review the previous articles on ARP0108:2007 that appeared in SA Instrumentation and Control, scan the QR code from your mobile device. App (available on iOS, Android and online). Alternatively visit http://tinyurl.com/pvlmxd4
Tables of abbreviations and definitions, resources and references pertaining to this article can be found at http://instrumentation.co.za/+C18557
About the author
Andrew Ashton has electrical, mechanical and business qualifications and has been active in automation and process control since the early 1980s. Since 1991 he has headed up a company that has developed formulation management systems for the food, pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturing industries and manufacturing solutions involving the integration of various communication technologies and databases. Developed systems address issues around traceability, systems integration, manufacturing efficiency and effectiveness. Andrew is a contributing editor for SA Instrumentation and Control.
| Tel: | +27 11 262 8000 |
| Fax: | +27 11 262 8062 |
| Email: | [email protected] |
| www: | www.endress.com |
| Articles: | More information and articles about Endress+Hauser South Africa |
| Tel: | +27 31 764 0593 |
| Email: | [email protected] |
| www: | www.technews.co.za |
| Articles: | More information and articles about Technews Publishing (SA Instrumentation & Control) |
| Tel: | +27 10 055 7300/1 |
| Email: | [email protected] |
| www: | www.extech.co.za |
| Articles: | More information and articles about Extech Safety Systems |
© Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd | All Rights Reserved
printer friendly version