Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The
Challenge
Abstract
here has been an increasing emphasis in recent decades to achieve international
T codes and standards for electrical installations and products. Although the bene-
fits of unified documents and products worldwide seem obvious, the migration to
such internationalization requires management that considers regional differences of
elements such as: the presently installed base, practices used in construction, infra-
structure and expectations of users.
...to Having
Global Codes
and
Standards
by Jim Pauley, P.E
Contrast this picture with that of Europe in which establish permitted temperature rises in equipment
frequency is 50 Hz and a variety of electrical systems is based on a properly selected conductor being used. The
used, but almost never the American style electrical sys- code establishes the selection rules for the conductor on
tem. Residence and office distribution voltage is 230 V specific applications. Without proper coordination, an
rather than the 120 V used throughout North America. improperly selected conductor could lead to equipment
It should be understood that construction practices, operating at temperatures above the permitted limits.
training provided to installation professionals and ex- This is one of thousands of requirements under which
pectations of users differ from those of North America. the codes and product standards are linked.
wide schemes for assessing conformity to those standards. International Standard means IEC standard
Participation is through the national committee of each Trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade
participating nation.8 Presently there are 63 participating Agreement (NAFTA) and the WTO do use the term in-
nations. Within its structure there are 172 Technical and ternational standard in their text. The immediate assump-
Subcommittees and roughly 900 Working Groups, Proj- tion by many is that the term international standard refers
ect Teams and Maintenance Teams. The USA, Canada to IEC or ISO standards. Although some definitions for
and Mexico are all participating members. international standards may reference IEC and ISO stan-
Since North American countries participate, at least dards as examples, the definitions do not limit the term to
to some degree, in the development of a number of the standards developed by these organizations.
IEC standards, why should not these IEC standards be- In comments to the World Trade Organization
come the adopted standard in North America? Here are Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, the follow-
several points to consider. ing written comment was made: “The United States
1. None of the IEC standards are linked to the North continues to believe that bodies which operate with
American codes. If they are linked to any code, they are open and transparent procedures which afford an op-
linked to the IEC 60364 series of documents. There is no portunity for consensus among all interested parties
way to tell whether a product that satisfies an IEC stan- will result in standards which are relevant on a global
dard is compatible for use with other products in a system basis and prevent unnecessary barriers to trade.” 10
installed in compliance with a North American code. Internationally accepted standards which provide for
2. IEC standards are not generally reflective of regional this open and non-discriminatory access should be consid-
practices, products and infrastructure employed in North ered international standards. A good example would be the
America. One of the greatest influences in the development National Electrical Code developed under the National Fire
of IEC standards has been CENELEC.9 CENELEC is a Protection Association (NFPA) consensus process.
well-organized SDO with membership of 28 participating
European countries plus 8 affiliate countries from Central IEC standards are “better” than
and Eastern Europe. CENELEC standards define the North American counterparts
conditions for access of electrotechnical goods and services IEC and North American standards are all good stan-
into the European Market. Of the 63 countries participat- dards, competently developed and proven by field ex-
ing in IEC, 33 of them are associated with CENELEC. In perience. Components of each system work well when
the one-country one-vote system of IEC, North America used in the system of infrastructure for which they are
has a maximum of three votes. intended. One is not better than the other. They are dif-
3. Though many nations throughout the world con- ferent, based on different practices.
tributed to the development of these IEC standards The real issue is the mixing of products designed to
including the USA and Canada, the greatest input to standards that are not linked. The differences could
these standards was European. European countries have result in incompatibilities that affect the safety of the
largely adopted the standards in some form and employ electrical system.
them under their national installation codes.
4. The term international standard does not mean safe
IEC standards can always be adopted or
for application everywhere.
adapted with only minor country deviations.
It has been questioned whether North American stan-
Four Issues dards can be replaced by adopting IEC standards or
Four issues have arisen from the standards harmoniza- adapting them via minor in-country “deviations” to
tion and safety perspective. account for specific code practices. In some cases, near
1. International standard means IEC standard. compatibility exists to start with and adaptation or adop-
2. IEC standards are “better” than North American tion makes good sense. However, in one case in which
counterparts. “deviations” were listed, the list occupied as many pages
3. IEC standards can always be adopted or adapted as the applicable North American standard. A simple
with only minor country deviations. review of the existing installation code does not identify
4. Manufacturers’ reputations and suppliers’ declara- the necessary deviations. Some linked requirements are
tions are preferred conformity assessment procedures. not obvious, though they are the result of years of co-
development of the code and product standard.
Manufacturers’ reputations and suppliers’ declarations Regarding point 2, there is presently a North
are preferred conformity assessment procedures. American initiative to harmonize product standards
Manufacturers’ declarations of conformity to electrical for many products throughout the three countries.
equipment standards are not generally acceptable to Harmonization is carried out under the Consejo de
users, manufacturers or inspectors in North America. Armonizacion de Normalizacion Electrotecnica de
In general, all prefer third party certification for assur- las Naciones de America (CANENA) or the Council
ance, uniform interpretation and liability purposes. As for Harmonization of Electrotechnical Standardiza-
mentioned above, electrical codes permit installation tion of the Nations of the Americas. CANENA is
of equipment that has been approved by the authority an umbrella organization that assembles harmo-
having jurisdiction. To grant approval, those authorities nization committees, composed of members from
typically rely on listing and labeling by an organization participating countries, to work together. The
equipped and recognized for that purpose. In defining standards developed are adopted by the SDO for
the term listed, the codes in the USA and Mexico specif- each country, such as ANCE in Mexico, UL in the
ically discuss periodic inspection of runs of goods at the USA and CSA in Canada. The result of the process
factory as a follow-up to the initial evaluation and test- is a single standard published by the participating
ing program. In Canada, follow-up inspection is also SDOs and containing the requirements for all par-
required though not specifically mentioned in the code. ticipating countries. To a great extent, the standards
Follow-up inspection at the factory is an essential and permit a single product to be applied in any of the
highly valuable service that provides for conformance participating countries. These standards may also
through the manufacturing life of a product. be harmonized with counterpart IEC standards to
the extent possible based on infrastructure consider-
Preserving The System ations and the installation codes.
Several basic and key steps can be taken to preserve and The emergence of harmonized standards through-
further unify the North American electrical safety system. out North America or throughout the Americas rec-
1. More clearly cross-reference codes to product stan- ognizes the similarity of electrical systems and/or of
dards for safety. electrical safety systems. It supports the link between
2. Harmonize product standards within North product standards, installation codes and the inspec-
America. tion authority throughout the region. It will also pro-
3. Globalize the inspection and enforcement concepts. vide for a more closely unified view as the next steps
There may be useful work in tying product standards in harmonization with or adoption of IEC standards
to codes. Presently, code requirements are written with are taken. This is in addition to the benefit of having a
no referential or process link to product standards. Peo- single product suitable throughout the region.
Opportunities for the Americas homogeneous today in terms of the three legs of the elec-
The homogeneity of electrical systems is not solely true trical safety system and also in terms of the electrical sys-
for North America. Other nations of the Americas and tems installed. This regional unity should be recognized.
elsewhere share similar electrical systems and interests 3. International standards are not limited to those
for a common safety system. A version of the NEC has developed by IEC and ISO. Because of the unique
been used in Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Saudi Ara- nature of North American electrical systems and the
bia, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. All of these na- links of the safety elements, unified application of
tions would share an interest in product standards that present North American standards is a safe approach
are linked to their national code and could be support- that retains the integrity of the infrastructure.
ive in making that link by having practices from those 4. Most IEC standards were not developed in con-
codes and standards recognized in either IEC standards sideration of North American installation codes. As
or in regional standards. such, key linkages for safety between the codes and
the IEC standards do not exist and adoption or ad-
North American Influence aptation of IEC standards must be approached with
Customer focus caution.
Customer needs, consistent with safety practices must 5. Identical or equivalent harmonized standards are
drive any approach to codes and standards. This state- being developed and published within the three North
ment leads to the thought that systems are best when American countries. These standards contain require-
open to the application of whatever product fits the ments linked to the codes for safety. They often permit
customer need, a product appropriately certified to a single product to be used in all three countries, with
whatever standard that properly supports the installa- minor modifications in some cases.
tion code. 6. The needs of customers, consistent with safety prac-
tices, must be a primary consideration in any action.
Two systems 7. There are presently two approaches to electrical
It should be recognized that there are two approaches to safety systems in the world: the North American system
electrical safety systems in the world today. There is the and the European (IEC) system. As we discuss moving
North American system with its set of practices linked to toward a single, worldwide system, the infrastructures
very similar installation codes. There is also the European of both systems as well as of other smaller systems which
safety system with IEC standards at the center. Both are may have unique needs must be accommodated.
very good, but they are different. Pressuring either one to
References
throw out existing standards in favor of the standards of 1
ANSI/IEEE Std. 142-1991, IEEE Recommended Practice for
the other would be unwise, unsafe and impractical. Grounding of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems.
2
ANSI/IEEE Std. 242, IEEE Recommended Practice for Protection
One system and Coordination of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems.
3
One worldwide system can only be achieved when stan- 2005 World Fact Book, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
4
dards become truly international. If the international ANSI/NFPA 70-1996, National Electrical Code.
standards are to be IEC standards, they must recognize 5
CSA Standard C22.1-98, Canadian Electrical Code, Part 1.
North American principles and practices. Harmoniza- 6
NOM-001-SEMP-1994, Norma Oficial Mexicana.
tion means an understanding of differences between in- 7
IAEI.org
stallation codes and effective steps to account for them 8
International Electrotechnical Commission – web site, 2005
with safe product requirements. 9
“CENELEC, Its objectives, structure and activities,” printed 3/6/98
from the CENELEC web site, Brussels.
Conclusions 10
US Contribution to WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade
1. The North American electrical safety system is com- - G/TBT/W/64 - April 2, 1998.
prised of linked installation codes, product standards and Jim Pauley is Vice President, Industry and Government
the inspection function. These are the three legs of the Relations for Square D Company/Schneider Electric North
America. He is a member of NEC CMP 2, the NEC TCC
system. None of these elements is a standalone element to and the NFPA Standards Council. In addition he is the US
be replaced without recognizing the other two. Technical Advisor to IEC TC 64 - Electrical Installations in
Buildings and Chairman of the ANSI Executive Standards
2. The North American system is the largest in the Council.Technical Advisor to IEC TC 64 - Electrical Installa-
world in terms of electricity consumption. It is largely tions in Buildings and Chairman of the ANSI Executive Standards Council.