ExTAG/274/CC
August 20102
INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSION SYSTEM FOR CERTIFICATION TO STANDARDS RELATING TO EQUIPMENT FOR USE IN EXPLOSIVE ATMOSPHERES (IECEx SYSTEM)
Circulated to: ExTAG – IECEx Testing and Assessment Group
TITLE: Compilation of comments on ExTAG/262/CD Draft Decision Sheet – FLAME RETARDANCE TESTING
INTRODUCTION
This document is a compilation of comments on ExTAG Draft Decision Sheet – ExTAG/262 /CD Draft Decision, FLAME RETARDANCE TESTING.
The document has been listed on ExTAG /267A/DA ExTAG Draft Agenda for the Calgary Meeting.
On behalf of Mr. Brenon
Michel Brenon
ExTAG Secretary
Address:IECEx Secretariat
286 Sussex Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Australia / Contact Details:
Tel: +61 2 8206 6940
Fax: +61 2 8206 6272
E-mail:
http://www.iecex.com / ExTAG Secretary
Mr Michel Brenon/LCIE
Tel: +33 1 40 95 5519
Fax:+33 1 40 95 5520
Page 1 of 3
ExTAG/274/CC
August 20102
Member Body/Country / Clause/ Sub-clause / Paragraph Figure/ Table / Type of
comment
General/
technical/
editorial / COMMENTS / Proposed change / Observation /
I am responding in my role of Chairman of TC 31.
I believe the proposed decision sheet represents an interpretation to the standard. This is the role of
TC 31. I note that it recommends the results of the feedback be sent to MT 60079-7 for the next
edition. I suggest that MT 60079-7 also be asked to prepare an I-SH (interpretation sheet) for the current edition and that the decision sheet not be finalized.
Jim Munro / Agreed
The draft decision sheet will not be progressed and it will be passed, together with this collation of comments, for action by MT 60079-7
The primary purpose in issuing this draft DS was to see if other bodies agreed we had a problem, and this has been demonstrated.
FM Approvals
(FMG) / General / OD 035 states that The purpose of ExTAG Decision Sheets is not to modify or "interpret" Standards.”. What is requested is an interpretation of the standard. This should be directed to TC31 to be addressed. / Refer the problem to IEC TC31/MT60079-7 to consider the preparation of an I-SH. / Agreed
NANIO/
CCVE
(RU) / General / We support that "readily ignitable materials should not be used" relates to the sealing of cell cases.
/ In 60079-7 the exact requirements, not references to any national standards (e.g. UL94VO), shall be specified. / Noted
UL/
USA / General / While we agree with the need to clarify this clause, this draft DS as written is not supported. While the term “readily ignitable” has no formally defined meaning, a flame rating could be one meaning. However, ignition of non-metallic materials in Ex equipment could apply to more than just batteries. Further, based on discussions with UL’s principal engineer for batteries, with the exception of lead acid and lithium ion pouch type cells, most casings are metal. The lead acid is at minimum 94HB although for UPS requirements, it has typically been required that the casing be V-2 minimum to cover an old UPS criteria (although that is no longer in place). The lithium ion pouch cells are a polymer aluminum laminate, with no requirement for any specific rating for the polymer. The real concern is to use materials that will not deteriorate or corrode with contact with the electrolyte and materials within the battery. / It is recommended that this issue be presented to IEC/TC 31 MT 60079-7 for clarification. / Agreed
UL Demko's
(DK) / Please consider UL USA's comments also as UL Demko's. / Noted
Page 1 of 3