/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRYDIRECTORATE-GENERAL
New Approach Industries, Tourism & CSR
Mechanical, Electrical and Telecomm Equipment
94/9/EC Committee
Working Group on ATEX
ATEX_WG/11/1/02

ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group

Draft minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 7 July 2010

Subject:Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX

Place:Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels

Chairperson:Mr. Joaquín CALVO BASARÁN (COMM ENTR/I4)

COMM Participants:Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Mr. Bernd MERZ, Ms. Raffaela FRACONFINI(ENTR/I4), Ms. Birgit WEIDEL (ENTR/C1)

List of Participants:See Annex I

0. Welcome

The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the COMM participants.

1. Approval of the draft agenda

Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/01 rev. 2

The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. He announced some modifications in the structure with regard to previous meeting, with the point “ATEX ADCO” placed before “Directive 94/9/EC: interpretation questions”, and the recuperation of the point related to the “ATEX ‘workplace’ Directive 1999/92/EC”. Item 8 on New Legislative Framework would be discussed with a representative of the Commission services dealing with the whole alignment exercise, available also for questions.

The draft agenda was approved.

2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 16 December 2009

Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/02

The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes of the last ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 16 December 2009.

The draft minutes were approved.

3. Update on the ATEX website on EUROPA

Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) presented the last developments and updates on the ATEX website on EUROPA[1], after the recent revamping. All the documents had been recovered, and a set of direct links to the most relevant information available – Legislation, Guidance,Standardization,Notified Bodies,Contact points and Market Surveillance authorities, and e-mail contact – had been added on the mainpage in order to make easier the access to the contents of the website. In particular, for the Guidance documents, more language versions were expected for the ATEX Guidelines Also, as agreed at the last ATEX WG meeting, the consolidated minutes of the meetings of the Working Group of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC Standing Committee from 1997 to 2006 had been included on and the updated list of “noted” ExNBG Clarification Sheets had been published on

SWEDEN appreciated the work on the ATEX website. Concerning the guidance documents particularlyConsideration Papers and Guidelines, they asked to put in evidence the changes between different versions, for example in “track changes”: it would be very useful for translation purposes, to produce other language versions of guidance documents.

Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) agreed with the proposal. Specific documents including “track changes” for new versions of guidance documents would be drafted and uploaded on the website, on the “Archive” space

POLAND announced that they would send a Polish version of the ATEX Guidelines, to make it available on the website.

Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) thanked POLAND and confirmed that, when received, also the Polish version of the ATEX Guidelines would be uploaded on the apposite webpage.

Action I

COMM to draft and upload on the ATEX website specific documents with the last changes in guidance documents (Guidelines and Consideration Papers).

4. Report by Chair ATEX ADCO

SWEDEN (ATEX ADCO Chair) reported on the last ADCO meeting held in Stockholm on 23-24 June 2010. An overview on the main points discussed there included market surveillance activities and procedures, political and legal issues, standardisation and technical questions, etc. Full reports on the ADCO meeting – including pictures – would be available on the relevant folder on CIRCA[2].

Specific discussions had regarded the support of the Commission to ADCO activities, and the legal status and use of “CE” and “Ex” markings. In particular, they asked CEN to answer to a question regarding the Ex marking (“hexagon”) not required in harmonised standard EN 13463-1[3].

Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) said that they had identified the lack in the marking section of the standard, and at the next plenary meeting, CEN TC 305 would take a resolution to amend the standard and to update that section. For the future, this specific marking should be included also at international level, in IEC standards as well.

Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) added that the Ex marking was a part of the legal marking, as requested in the Directive and also included in the New Legislative Framework, with markings supplemented by special logos. All standards were not entitled to mention the CE marking, as its use was referred to compliance to all applicable directives. For the Ex marking, it could be added to standards as an “appendix” to the CE marking, but such inclusionshould not be mandatory. The “hexagon” Ex marking had been invented before the CE marking in the first directives, and it has been maintained in the Directive 94/9/EC, being recognized worldwide as a European logo for explosion protection in Europe, as an “addendum” to the CE marking. It was part of the Directive, with no obligation to be included into harmonised standards: that would be more an issue for legislation.

Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31)said that CEN and CENELEC had approached the question from different perspectives. The Ex marking has been part of standards from the old approach directives, and with the new ATEX standards the Ex marking had been shown as part of common modification to the normative text of the IEC version. In the latest standards, it was part of Annex ZY, taking out the Ex marking from the normative part of standards and putting it into the informative one.

SWEDEN (ATEX ADCO Chair) called for a common approach CEN-CENELEC on the issue, to avoid any confusion.

The Chairperson and Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) recalled the support from the Commission services to the ADCO activities, including the availability of premises and interpretation for meetings in Brussels, CIRCA, translation of documents, etc. For further support as requested by the ADCO members, the Commission recognized the key importance of market surveillance activities, but it would not easy to provide specific resources, for the current serious budget constraints all over Europe.

5. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions

Clarification to EHSR 1.0.6(c) and chapter 10.1.3 of the ATEX Guidelines

Docs. ATEX_WG/10/1/06, ATEX_WG/10/1/06_1, ATEX_WG/10/1/06_2, ATEX_WG/10/1/06_3, ATEX_WG/10/1/06_4, ATEX_WG/10/1/06_5

Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) recalled the current situation on the text to be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines, regarding information for repair, maintenance and overhaul of equipment. The Commission services had uploaded a proposal on CIRCA for written discussion, taking into consideration different contributions and remarks from previous discussions. Five comments had been received: from CYPRUS, UNITED KINGDOM, DENMARK, NETHERLANDS and GERMANY. CYPRUS also drafted a “merged document” with the original version prepared by the Commission and the different comments received.

The UNITED KINGDOM presented their comment, suggesting an example related to particularly specialised equipment.

GERMANY thought that examples could be useful in this kind of documents, but this one did not fit here, being too specific and it could be misinterpreted. It would be better not including it there.

Mr. Huhle (ORGALIME), FRANCE and Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant)agreed with GERMANY.

SPAIN observed that discussion on the issue was still at the starting point. It would be necessary to come back to the Directive thatalready established what the manufacturer must do and must provide to the user. It would not be possible to cover all the possible cases, and only obligations of the manufacturer should be taken into consideration, not for users.

DENMARK introduced their comments and their revised text proposal. It should be clearly stated that instructions were required to carry out all foreseen maintenance operations, and the importance of “safety reasons” for repair by the manufacturer himself, with the relevant documentation to be included in the instructions.

The NETHERLANDS said that the ATEX Guidelines already stated that not all the technical file should be given to the user. They support the proposal from DENMARK.

Mr. Huhle (ORGALIME)underlined that instructions for repair had to remain responsibility of the manufacturer, according to requirements of the Directive.

GERMANY agreed with the DENMARK and the NETHERLANDS. Requirements for manufacturers and for users should be kept distinct. They asked clarification on the last sentence in DK paper: it could be problematic when a manufacturer would be no longer active.

DENMARK reaffirmed the intention of not going beyond the Directive. They recognised a possible risk about the information to be provided by the manufacturer, but the most important thing would be the documentation, and there would be different ways to qualify or to authorize repairers: the user could go to one of them, with the relevant documentation.

POLAND supported DENMARK, in particular about the need to make a clear distinction between the two ATEX Directives, taking into consideration also other New Approach directives.

SPAIN thought that the indication “safety reasons” was redundant: the manufacturer should draft the instructions, giving clear and objective indications for safety.

The NETHERLANDS presented their comments. They asked for a more balanced approach between the role and responsibility of manufacturers and users.

GERMANY also presented their comments, suggesting deleting the last sentence on contractual responsibility. They recalled that guidelines could not set any obligation as such, but possible misunderstandings should be avoided.

CYPRUS introduced their comments and the merged version of the document. ATEX Guidelines should convey a correct message to manufacturers and users.

Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) thanked CYPRUS for the effort of taking into consideration the last contributions on the document and considered the merged version a good basis to reach an agreement.

The Chairpersonnoted the general agreement on taking on board the paper for discussion: with some minor corrections, the CY proposal would be submitted to a written procedure on CIRCA from September 2010 onwards, to take a final decision at the next ATEX WG meeting: to approve a final agreed text, or to close the discussion and take apart the proposal for the time being, as the Directive as such already contained the basic provisions about documentation to be provided.

This was agreed.

Action II

COMM to revise the CY “merged document” and to upload it on CIRCA, as a final proposal submitted to a written procedure from September 2010 onwards, in view of the final decision at the next ATEX WG meeting.

Clarification of marking for equipment with an internal explosive atmosphere

Docs. ATEX_WG/10/1/03, ATEX_WG/10/1/03 rev. 1

The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the papers on marking for equipment with an internal explosive atmosphere: the request for clarification, already presented at the last ATEX WG meeting, and a suggested text for guidance, to be included into the section 11.2 of the ATEX Guidelines.

GERMANY pointed out that the note proposed by the UK referred to “equipment”, but it would be rather a “device”. It was a good proposal but it could need further clarification: they suggested replacing “equipment” with “product”, to avoid possible confusion.

Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) remarked, concerning terminology, that “hazardous area”, even frequently used, was not clearly defined in the ATEX Directive.

The UNITED KINGDOM agreed with the comments of GERMANY and Mr. Dill: “product” would be more appropriate than “equipment”; and “hazardous area” would be replaced by “potentially explosive atmosphere”. The proposed note would be amended accordingly.

Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31), by the point of view of Notified Bodies advising manufacturers, expressed concerns on the UK text with regard to the examples given in the text and the scope of the ATEX Directive.

The Chairperson confirmed that a new proposal from the UNITED KINGDOM would be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting.

Action III

UK to submit a new proposal with the note amended as discussed at the meeting.

Minimum content for an EC-Type Examination test report

Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/04

The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the paper with a proposal to improve section 10.2 of ATEX Guidelines on the minimum level of information to be given in test reports. It would help to clarify the current situation with certain Notified Bodies, according to some UK stakeholders.

GERMANY said that the same problem had been discussed with German stakeholders: the question was related to legal relationship between manufacturer and Notified Body, as a legal agreement between private entities with contractual freedom. They agreed on the content to deliver.

FRANCE considered that reports were necessary for surveillance procedures and monitoring process, but for the notifying authorities they were already available.

The UNITED KINGDOM agreed with GERMANY and FRANCE. Reports were available for surveillance and accreditation authorities.

SWEDEN supported the UK proposal, being feasible to get that information.

The NETHERLANDS asked whether the question were relevant also for the ATEX Notified Bodies Group (ExNBG), taking into consideration different equipment categories and the relationship between manufacturers and Notified Bodies.

Mr. Houeix (ExNBG)said that from the question of test reports had been arisen at the last ExNBG meeting. They had decided that the reports had to be communicated to the customer, but only on customer’s request.

Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) proposed to submit the UK paper to the ExNBG, at their next meeting in November 2010, to ask for their opinion, in order to retake the discussion at the next ATEX WG meeting in December 2010.

This was agreed.

Action IV

ExNBG to discuss the UK paper at their next meeting in November 2010, to provide their opinion at the next ATEX WG meeting in December 2010.

Electrical trace heating systems

Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/10

GERMANYintroduced a discussion paper on electrical trace heating systems, with relevance also for the ATEX “workplace” Directive 1999/92/EC, involving equipment category and zone of application. There was a need for consistency in the language to be used for manufacturers and installers, taking in account the technical conception as well as the practical installation and putting into service operations. They asked standardisers and Notified Bodies for an opinion on the issue.

FRANCE asked for some clarification on how to approach the requirement of EC-Type Examination Certificate for this equipment, including tests in line with the relevant standards, and the safety conditions of installation, not part of Directive 94/9/EC but of Directive 1999/92/EC.

GERMANYanswered that the problem would be with the limits of the directives and the difficulties to establish a dividing line between them. The paper aimed to outline those problems and to propose a specific approach. In this sense, the opinion of the Committee members was requested.

Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) considered the paper as a good description of this kind of equipment and of the way to deal with them, as an example of assembly with the different technical and installation characteristics. It should be further analysed by the most directly interested parties, as standardisers and Notified Bodies, to collect comments and contributions in view of its possible adoption as a Consideration Paper at the next ATEX WG meeting.

This was agreed.

Action V

All – in particular CEN, CENELEC and ExNBG – to further analyse the DE paper in view of its possible adoption as a Consideration Paper on Electrical trace heating systems at the next ATEX WG meeting in December 2010.

Automatically lubricating systems

Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/11

GERMANYintroduced a discussion paper on automatically lubricating systems. The question regarded whether it was electrical or mechanical equipment according to the Directive 94/9/EC: the proposed conclusion was that the automatic lubrication system, and the batteries as an integral part of it, were electrical equipment, category 2.

FRANCE shared the opinion of GERMANY.

The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the paper. It would be considered as a Consideration Paper, to be formally approved by the ATEX Standing Committee and to be published on the ATEX website.

Action VI

COMM to submit the DE paper to the formal approbation by the ATEX Standing Committee and to publish it on the ATEX website as a Consideration Paper.

Mist explosion hazards

Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/12

The UNITED KINGDOM introduced a paper with a number of queries to the Committee Members on mist explosion hazards, in order to get more information on the issue, as well as on any current resources as national guidance, research projects, recommendations for protection, etc.

GERMANY said that some related information would be available for machinery, in cases of pressure explosions involving plastics, flammable substances, etc. Research had been done by sectors: they would collect this information.

Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) mentioned some technical guidance on standards and classification of zones for flammable substances and hazards related with mists.

Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) asked those presents for contributions and comments on the issue, for the next ATEX WG meeting, to be discussed and to decide on the need to draft some specific document.

Action VII

All to provide contributions and comments on the UK paper and mist explosion hazards, to be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting.

6. Standardisation issues

ATEX Harmonized Standards

The Chairpersonsaid that the new consolidated list of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC was just published on the OJEU on7 July 2010 (see EUROPA website)[4].

FRANCE asked for clarification regarding the standard EN 13463-1[5]: it has been published on 16.4.2010, superseding the 2001 version with no transitional period, as the “Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard” was the same 16.4.2010.

Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) said that normally, transitional periods were shorter for CEN standards than CENELEC standards. According to previous discussions, they would try to extend and to align those periods on a case-by-case basis. The case of this standard was before that decision.

Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) said that the publication of new standards with “Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard” the same day should be avoided as most as possible; but it would depend not only on the standard itself, but also on the technical delay for publication of consolidated lists of harmonised standards on the Official Journal. In this specific case for EN 13463-1, the “Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard” would be extended at least 6 months, in the next publication.