Explosion-Proof Electrical Enclosures and Systems- Is Class 1 Div 1 going away?

[jwbizdev]

I will preface this by stating that I am a part of the management team of a privately-owned company in the United States that manufactures and supplies NEMA 4X/7/9 enclosures to markets worldwide. Most of you probably won't have any idea who we are but if you source these enclosures, feel free to privately message me as I intend to comply with this sites' general anti-solicitation policy.

My main question to those who dabble in the Harsh and Hazardous Industry on the electrical design side- Do you think that Class 1, Division 1 electrical equipment is going away? Our sales force year in and year out seem to get a mixed bag of opinion on this, but whenever it seems that the opinion shared is, "I believe Class 1, Div 1 is going away and you will see the whole market switch to Intrinsically Safe, Purge, etc. away from explosion-proof", we seem to sell more Class 1, Div 1 enclosures.

Class 1, Division 2 requests have skyrocketed and, although we are actively looking at pursuing enclosure systems to make that provide this solution, we have been selling C1D1 in it's place and somewhat frequently. We don't fill all the requests because the clients will search elsewhere or find a different solution, but we have also recently seen an uptick in C1D1 requests themselves.

Would love to hear any and all thoughts/opinions on this as we are always looking to evolve as a company and give the people what they want, so to speak.

Thanks in advance!

 

[mparenteau]

IMHO, I think C1, D1 applications will be around for a long time, especially as it pertains to motor installations. Many applications in the pharma industry require "wet dumping" of product so equipment in the C1, D1 area (like an agitator motor or the like) would need to have its motor properly rated. Of course then, that means j-boxes, wiring methods, etc. in the "bubble" would need to meet the requirements of the area.

Mike

 

[moltenmetal]

Class 1 Division 1 (zones 0 and 1) environments continue to exist, but they ARE being engineered out of existence as much as possible. As they should be! Areas that are normally hazardous, where potential sources of ignition coexist with flammable atmospheres waiting to explode or deflagrate, SHOULD be rare!

Reading API 500 and NFPA 497 in detail, it also seems quite clear to me that many industries wrongly defined Div 2/Zone 2 areas as Div 1/zone 0 or 1 areas in a mistaken attempt to limit liability. Similarly, many areas that should be defined as general purpose are defined as Div 2/Zone 2 wrongly. Furthermore, flammability concerns are frequently taken seriously, despite the fact they often coexist with toxic exposure concerns of perhaps 1000x the actual risk to personnel- and these latter concerns are either just ignored or improperly mitigated. Frequently, mitigating the toxic exposure concern by engineering controls ALSO mitigates the flammability concern completely.

But what you're really asking is if explosion proofing, an approved method of protection for general purpose or otherwise uncertified electrical equipment to be used in a Class 1 zone 0 or 1 environment, is ALSO being engineered out of existence, with other approved methods of protection being substituted.

The answer to that is also absolutely. Huge, heavy, expensive explosion proof enclosures aren't desirable, nor are poured seals on every wire leading to and from these enclosures. If there's another approach which provides acceptable safety without those disadvantages, I'm going to use them. The proliferation of devices which are now considered nonincendive and hence approved for Cl1 Div 2 environments is part of that for sure. Bunging everything inside a Div 1 enclosure is no longer the easiest, cheapest way to solve an approvals-related problem so it's being done less often.