/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
Aerospace, security, defence and equipment
Mechanical and electrical equipment
94/9/EC Committee
Working Group on ATEX
ATEX_WG/07/2/01
ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group
Draft minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 30th November 2006
Subject:Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX
Place:Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels
Chairperson:Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/H5)
COMM Participants:Ms. Maria SPILIOPOULOU-KAPARIA, Mr. Bernd MERZ, Mr. David EARDLEY, Mr. Fabrizio SACCHETTI (ENTR/H5), Ms. Natalie CHEVALLIER (ENTR/H1)
List of Participants:See Annex I
0. Welcome
The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the European Commission participants, Mr. Eardley as former responsible of the ATEX Directive, and Mr. Merz as deputy to the ATEX Directive. He clarified that this Experts Working Group meeting would be followed by a formal Standing Committee meeting, given the nature of the agenda and the items to be discussed and submitted to approbation.
1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX/06/2/01 rev.2
The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda.
Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) proposed, for “Any other business”, a point concerning instructions manual which could be provided also in electronic format, such as CD-ROM.
The Chairperson agreed on discussing the subject at point 7 “Any other business”.
With this addition, the draft agenda was approved.
2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting of 29th June 2006 Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/02
The minutes of the meeting held on 29th June 2006 were approved without amendment.
The Chairperson went through the action points agreed at the last meeting, as follows:
Action I
COMM to re-draft paper as agreed and circulate by written procedure.
The Chairperson reported that the Consideration Paper on Fork Lift Trucks had been removed from the web in August 2006 and a revised version (taking into account also the German proposal for ADCO and conformity assessment procedures) had been uploaded to CIRCA and submitted to 4-weeks period circulation on 6/10/2006. A comment from DENMARK had been received. It has been tabled at the Standing Committee meeting agenda, to be approved as Consideration Paper.
Actions II, III and IV
COMM to amend as agreed and re-word the text accordingly, and circulate for four weeks prior to approval.
The Chairperson reported that it has been done and uploaded to CIRCA on 6/10/2006 for a 4-weeks period circulation. Comments from DENMARK, the NETHERLANDS and Orgalime had been received. The papers have been tabled at the Standing Committee meeting agenda, to be approved and included in the Guidelines.
Action V
Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) to continue to prepare the text for consideration at the next meeting.
Mr Jockers (ExNBG) said that they had no time to prepare the document, in cooperation with GERMANY. They would organize a meeting and to carry out the work together.
The Chairperson confirmed that the issue would be followed up at the next meeting.
Action VI
COMM and the NETHERLANDS to prepare text for circulation (four weeks).
The Chairperson reported that a paper from the NETHRLANDS had been received on 1st November 2006. It has been tabled in the Agenda as ATEX_WG/06/2/03 (Interpretation questions: Flameproof enclosures) to be discussed.
Action VII
COMM to provide amended text for consideration (four weeks).
The Chairperson reported that the Consideration Paper on Petrol Pumps had been removed from the web in August 2006 and a revised version had been uploaded to CIRCA and submitted to 4-weeks period circulation on 9/10/2006. A comment from CZECH REPUBLIC had been received. It has been tabled at the Standing Committee meeting agenda, to be approved as Consideration Paper.
Action VIII
COMM to re-draft the paper as agreed, splitting it in two parts.
The Chairperson reported that the document had been revised and spat in two parts: the first one, properly dealing with the interface between the ATEX directives, would be discussed at point 3 of the Agenda as doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/04; the second one related to “spare parts” was to be further discussed as an horizontal issue, in order to prepare a specific paper together with other sectors such as Lifts and Cableways, as well as EMC in some cases.
Mr. Eardley (Commission) confirmed the horizontal interest of the issue, comparing with practices in other sectors. He recalled the EMC Guide, which allowed those specific non-compliant spare parts because it was allowed by the EMC Directive itself, for specific installations. But, as an horizontal issue, it should be considered also by the Legal Service of the Commission.
Action IX
COMM to identify action points and liaise with those concerned with a view to tabling papers at the next Working Party.
The Chairperson confirmed that these issues had been discussed with Mr. Dill, CEN/CENELEC Consultant, and docs. ATEX_WG/06/2/05 and ATEX_WG/06/2/06 would be submitted at point 3, presenting last findings on water through barriers.
Action X and XI
CENELEC draft a list for re-examination of conformity in ATEX equipment.
COMM to send letter to CEN and CENELEC requesting that identification is made of standards that have been revised such that this amendment may lead to a substantial change in the state of the art relating to health and safety.
Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) clarified that an indication for each new standard to be published was requested, specifying possible changes with regard to the state of the art. The exact way to include this indication should be defined: it was an on-going work.
The Chairperson confirmed that the issue would be further discussed at point 4 “Standardisation”.
Action XII
ExNBG and GERMANY to prepare a paper to be discussed at the next meeting.
The Chairperson confirmed that doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/13, prepared by ExNBG and Germany, would be discussed at the point "Revision of Harmonised Standards".
3. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions
Gas detectors with measuring devices (including content of ExNB/02/112/CS)
Doc. ATEX/06/1/05
See Action point V. To be reported at the next meeting.
Action I
Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) and GERMANY to continue preparing the text for consideration at the next meeting.
Flameproof enclosures (based on ExNB/00/035/CS) Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/03
The NETHERLANDS introduced the revised draft Consideration Paper regarding flameproof enclosures, and their findings after investigations with available documents on the subject. They suggested forwarding the paper to the ExNBG for further consideration. It was also related to other point in the Agenda, item 7, Assembly of components: when assembling flameproof enclosures, certified as components, with other certified components, according to the ATEX Guidelines (table 1), the resulting assembly would not need further investigation from NBs. It appeared surprising, as NBs used to issue component certificates, as assemblies would need always further investigation from NBs.
FRANCE remarked that, according to the Guidelines, when an assembly had no further risks, it would not need to be resubmitted to a NB; nevertheless it was only a partial assessment, not considering the overall safety of the equipment in question, so once the assembly was produced, it should go back to a NB.
Mr Jockers (ExNBG) confirmed that certificated components would be needed to build an assembly and a risk assessment should be carried out on possible new risks in the assembly. But the notion of component or complementary equipment was not clearly defined.
DENMARK shared the view of the NETHERLANDS. When components would be put together to create an equipment, this assembly as an equipment must undergo the relevant conformity assessment procedures, even if the components were certified.
GERMANY agreed with the NETHELANDS and DENMARK.
Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) observed that definition of components in the Directive was not exactly the same in the standards, and it could cause some confusion when a component could be used to be incorporated in equipment.
The NETHERLANDS recalled Table 1 of the Guidelines: it did not make any difference when putting together equipments and components with written attestation of conformity. It was not common use that such an assembly would not further investigated by a NB.
ITALYsupported the NETHERLANDS. These assemblies of components, with different configurations, could lead to very serious safety problems without the appropriate conformity assessment.
GERMANY pointed out possible problems with German translation of the concept of component and assemblies.
Mr. Eardley (Commission) clarified the difference between certificates of conformity for equipments and components. On one side, there was a type-examination certificate, meeting the requirements with regard to the use as foreseen by the manufacturer, including incorporation into assemblies, so it should be done just a risk assessment; for a component, there was an attestation of conformity, not knowing the possible intended use, so when included in an assembly, it would need further evaluation by a NB. Table 1 in the Guidelines was correct, but it would need further clarification, because using in the same terms “certificate of conformity” for equipment and components was not correct. He proposed to revise the wording of the table and maybe add a footnote, stating that an attestation of conformity for a component could not guarantee, in general, the safety of the equipment into which the component would be incorporated, as for a general component all possible use could not be foreseen, so further investigation and evaluation by a NB should be carried out.
The Chairperson remarked the difference between equipment (as defined in the Directive) with CE mark and components with written attestation of conformity. He agreed on the suggestion by Mr. Eardley to revise and clarify Table 1 in the Guidelines.
GERMANY proposed an example with a flameproof enclosure and a cable gland, to clarify the difference between equipment and component in an assembly.
SPAIN underlined that the characteristics of the component should be specified with regard to protection systems, in order to full comply the requirements of the Directive.
Mr. Eardley (Commission) observed that sometimes it would not possible for NBs to say exactly how safety components would be used, so they put pre-conditions in the attestation of conformity: that was the gap between these components and equipment.
The Chairperson concluded with the agreement to submit a revised Table 1 at the next meeting.
Action II
COMM to revise Table 1 of the Guidelines in order to clarify differences between safety components and equipment with regard to assemblies and conformity assessment.
Interface to the ATEX workplace “user” Directive Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/04
The Chairperson confirmed that the paper had been revised as agreed at the last meeting, removing the point related to “non-compliant spare parts”, and introduced its present contents.
SPAIN expressed some remarks on point c). About “substantial modifications”, it could lead to confusion if literally read, by assessing only the modified part, when such an assessment should be carried out on the whole effects in the modified equipment. Furthermore, when “the nature of the risk increases”, it should be drafted more clearly, according to the New Approach guide, specifying the procedures to be applied as a new product with regards to the safety requirements.
GERMANY agreed with the content of the paper, but still remarked their reservation about “products manufactured for own use”. In addition, they proposed to remove the three notes at the end of the paper, as their content was already included in previous point.
Mr. Eardley (Commission) pointed out, at point 2, second page, that it should be not necessary to add “environmental” to “health and safety reasons”, for this kind of Directive.
The Chairperson agreed to modify the wording in point c) of the document in order to clarify the situation with modifications and risks, being necessary to assess whether the whole equipment could be affected by any modification applied, and the nature and level of risk, with regard to the essential safety requirements. He also accepted the drafting comments from GERMANY and Mr. Eardley, and would revise the paper in that way.
Action III
COMM to modify the document as agreed. It would be submitted to written procedure in order to be formally approved (uploaded to CIRCA for 4-weeks period).
Water through barriers by the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant
Docs. ATEX_WG/06/2/05, ATEX_WG/06/2/06
Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) referred to the papers to explain that the problem related to water through barriers had been resolved, by the standardisation point of view, and that the draft Consideration Paper could be finally approved.
The UNITED KINGDOM remarked that water through barriers were very simple systems, but they were considered as protective systems, to be certified by NBs in a specific moment.
Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) clarified that the most important criteria for certification was the design of water through barrier, in the sense of Directive.
Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) supported Mr. Jockers on the conformity assessment procedures for these systems, to be properly assembled and installed according to the documentation.
The Chairperson noted the agreement to adopt the Consideration Paper, taking into consideration the final version of the standard EN 14591-2, to be published at beginning of 2007, as announced by Mr. Dill.
Assembly for components - Question from NL Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/07
The Chairperson confirmed the position expressed in the previous point related to “Flameproof enclosures” and assemblies, and the agreement on revising Table 1 of the Guidelines.
4. Progress on standardisation
ATEX Harmonized Standards
The Chairperson said that the latest publication had taken place on 20th July 2006 (see EUROPA)[1] and that new lists by CEN had been received on 24th October. Next publication of new consolidated lists in the OJEU would presumably take place in December 2006 – also waiting for the next sending from CENELEC.
The Netherlands asked for clarification on out-of-date standards still included in the consolidated list, as well as the short time of the date of cessation of old standards in some cases.
Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) said that it was purely a matter of timing between the production of standard and publication of its reference.
The Chairperson also recalled the practical problems of edition and preparation of lists to be sent for publication, and consequentially possible mismatching in dates of publication and withdrawing of superseded standards.
Standardisation work in CEN/TC 305
Mr. Radandt (CEN TC 305) presented the written report (recently provided and not yet uploaded to CIRCA: circulated at the meeting).
Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31
Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) reported on the issue, stating that there were no significant change with regard to the previous meeting (no written report had been prepared).
Mr. Eardley (Commission) asked CEN and CENELEC about the situation of harmonised standards with regard to international standards (identical, or any deviation) and the identification of changes related to the state of the art.
Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) explained that on the electrical side, almost all standards were technically identical, with only specific deviations in marking or instructions. International cooperation with IEC aimed to ensure a single coherent set of standards, in different fields related to explosion protection.
Mr. Radandt (CEN) confirmed good cooperation also with ISO at international level.
Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) also confirmed that no A-deviation were present in harmonised standards; in this fully harmonised field, A-deviations only could be permitted for very extraordinary situations (e.g. temperatures of equipments depending on European climate).
Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/08
Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented the written report, summarised in very few key points.
Revision of Harmonised Standards Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/13
GERMANYintroduced the paper, drafted in cooperation with ExNBG, proposing modification of ATEX Guidelines 10.3. According to the conclusion, point 10.3 dealt with the situation very comprehensively, rather in general terms, so there was no need to produce again an independent paper, further to the Guidelines. They draw the attention to more special cases, where changes in technology could result in harmonised standards, and their impact. Point 10.3 of the Guidelines should be left substantially unchanged, made it more specific in one passage only, as indicated in the proposal submitted. All interested parties should be involved in taking a decision about substantial changes and their effects in standards, with appropriate mechanisms.
Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) added that NBs had discussed the question at their last meeting, welcoming the proposed changes in the Guidelines. Furthermore, he remarked that when manufacturers could carry out a conformity assessment on his own, they should refer to the existing state of technology, not relying only on point 10.3, as it dealt with harmonised standards only.
Mr. Klütsch (Orgalime) appreciated the solution proposed by GERMANY.
The NETHERLANDS also supported the paper. He asked for the status of the notes from the Senior Official Group on Standardisation (SOGS) on conformity assessment policy, about the new proposed text for revision of the standard modules. What was put for module B for type examination was not in line with the content of the document. Substantive developments in the state of the art should be noted not only by NBs, but generally acknowledged by the community of stakeholders.
Mr. Eardley (Commission) said that the expression “generally acknowledged state of the art” normally presumed generally acknowledged by the stakeholders. About SOGS, their considerations had been included in the last papers on the revision of the New and Global Approach, currently open, to be sent from the Commission services to the Council and to the Parliament in the first quarter of 2007, starting the co-decision procedure in view of its approbation as legal reference.
Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) remarked possible differences in language versions and interpretation of the paragraph proposed to be added to the Guidelines, in particular with regard to type-examination certification.
AUSTRIA thought that part 13 of the Guidelines would apply to all conformity assessment procedures, and it should be considered too.
GERMANY said that their proposal dealt with point 10.3, where NBs were referred for the first time, but it was connected also with other general points in the proceeding passages. Reference could be made not only in 10.3 but also in 13 in the Guidelines, as proposed by AUSTRIA, and in other passages.