Draft Minutes ATEX WG Meeting 2008-06-25

ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group

Draft minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 25 June 2008

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

Place:Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels

Chairperson:Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/I4)

COMM Participants:Mr. Joaquín CALVO BASARÁN, Mr. Bernd MERZ, Ms. Catherine KOECKX (ENTR/I4), Mr. Zacharias BILALIS (ENTR/C1)

List of Participants:See Annex III

0. Welcome

The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the COMM participants. Fringe

1. Approval of the draft agenda

Doc. ATEX/08/1/01 rev. 1

The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda.

The draft agenda was approved.

2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 22 November 2007

Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/02

The UNITED KINGDOMremarked that, at the item “Gas detectors” (page 2), they had not said that “… or this point should be removed”: the issue should be discussed until a satisfactory consensus could be reached.

With the UK remarks, the minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2007 were approved.

3. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions

Gas detectors apparatus: Draft Consideration Paper (4-weeks circulation paper)

Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/11

Comment by the UK - Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/11-1

Comment by DE - Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/11-2

Comment by Orgalime - Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/11-3

The Chairperson introduced the paper submitted to a 4-weeks circulation period on CIRCA and the three comments received from the UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY and ORGALIME.

The UNITED KINGDOM proposed a re-formulation of the text, as it was not clear yet: there was confusion on the specific situation of those detectors. To reach a finally satisfactory solution, a panel of expert could be convened, or at least the German proposal should be taken into account, with a little change in chapter 3.10 of the ATEX Guidelines.

Mr. Klütsch (Orgalime) recalled considerations already submitted at previous meeting to present their comments.

GERMANYsupported their proposal for a new wording of ATEX Guidelines 3.10, point 4, by removing the word “direct”, without a specific Consideration Paper. Further discussions in order to improve the situation could be developed by experts later on; in the meantime, gas detectors should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Thedens (ExNBG) said that, at the last ExNBG meeting, no additional comments on the issue had been provided, more than the ones expressed by the previous Chairman, Mr. Jockers.

The UNITED KINGDOM thought that the Guidelines should not be changed, as the consequences of such amendment would not be very clear.

FRANCE supported the German proposal, by arguing that operators would not be sure on the use of gas detectors: they should be verified according to their specific situation.

The Chairperson asked Member States to take a decision on the two proposals: from the UNITED KINGDOM, to deep investigate the question and not to change the ATEX Guidelines, or from GERMANY, to take apart the draft Consideration Paper and to amend the ATEX Guidelines 3.10.

The UNITED KINGDOM proposal was supported by AUSTRIA and the UNITED KINGDOM; all the other Member States supported the GERMAN proposal.

The Chairperson noted the agreement of those present: the draft Consideration Paper would be taken apart and the wording of the ATEX Guidelines 3.10 would be changed, by removing “direct” form point 4, according to the German proposal.

GERMANY, at the request of AUSTRIA, agreed on the need to better explain the concept of “direct/indirect control” with regard to those specific devices. They would submit written contribution/considerations on the issue at the next meeting.

Action I

COMM to take apart the draft Consideration Paper as such and to change the wording of the ATEX Guidelines 3.10, point 4, removing “direct” according to DE comment.

DE to send written contribution/considerations on the issue of “direct control” mentioned in the draft Consideration Paper and removed from the new wording of the ATEX Guidelines 3.10, point 4.

Provision of test results with EC-Type Examination Certificates: Proposal of text to be inserted in the ATEX Guidelines (4-weeks circulation paper)

Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/03

Comment by the UK - Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/03-1

Comment by DE - Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/03-2

The Chairperson introduced the proposal of text for the ATEX Guidelines and recalled previous discussion on the issue. GERMANYhad proposed to include into section 10.2: it was agreed.

The UNITED KINGDOM proposed to include a specific wording on analysis for intrinsic safety, according to the comment they had provided.

The NETHERLANDSthought that “evaluation and test results” should be considered in the text, but without entering in such specific details as the UNITED KINGDOM had proposed, as it would be difficult its practical application by Notified Bodies.

Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) also thought that the idea of “intrinsic safety” in this point would lead to different treatment in evaluation processes.

The UNITED KINGDOM clarified that in the paper would not be mentioned “intrinsic safety” as such, but only a mention to a separate document regarding the analysis undertaken.

GERMANY pointed out that the contents of the proposal from the Commission and the one from the UNITED KINGDOM were different. Also with regard the use of “the report is to accompany…” (UK proposal) or “test results… should accompany” (COMM proposal): “should” was to be used because of the private nature agreement between the Notified Body and the manufacturer.

The NETHERLANDS expressed their preference for the COMM proposal, with the correction suggested by GERMANY and adding “evaluation” to “test results”.

DENMARK,ITALY and AUSTRIA also supported the COMM proposal as integrated by the NETHERLANDS, but replacing “should” with “shall”.

FRANCEand the CZECH REPUBLIC agreed with the German position in favour of “should”.

The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the Commission proposal as integrated by the NETHERLANDS, but not a clear position of those present on the question “should/shall”. On this last issue, the Commission would decide, after an internal consultation with the legal experts with regard to possible legal consequences of replacing “should” with “shall” in the text to be included into the ATEX Guidelines.

Action II

COMM to include into the ATEX Guidelines 10.2 the text proposed in doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/03, adding “Evaluation and” to “Test result supporting the decision…”, after an internal consultation about possible legal consequences related to changing “… should accompany” into “… shall accompany”.

Application of ATEX Guidelines 3.3

Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/04

The Chairperson introduced a proposal of text to be included into ATEX Guidelines 3.3, in order to clarify and to prevent/avoid any inadequate interpretation with regard to the definition of manufacturer and the application of conformity assessment procedures based on quality assurance.

Mr. Thedens (ExNBG) reported on discussion at the last ExNBG meeting, with a general agreement to support the proposal.

The UNITED KINGDOM agreed on the proposal but suggested to improve the text in order to clarify the relationship with the standard EN 13980:2002[1], as mentioned at previous WG meetings.

The NETHERLANDS also agreed but pointed out that the expression “It would not be reasonable…” was misleading: this part should be reworded.

FRANCErecalled the relevant Annexes IV and VII to the Directive and underlined the differences to be considered in production processes and the need to control and to carry out audits with regard to subcontractors, by the Notified Body.

AUSTRIA suggested revising the paper also in light of specific provisions of the New Legal Framework.

The Chairperson welcomed comments and contributions provided by Member States, and noted general agreement on improving the wording of the proposal, taking into consideration the results of the discussion, and on submitting the revised paper to a 4 week period circulation on CIRCA.

Mr. Solzi (Orgalime-ANIA)expressed the need to reach a final text, based on the general agreement, as soon as possible, as the problem was very significant for industry.

The UNITED KINGDOM said that the most important thing was to obtain a good and useful text. They proposed to co-operate with the Commission to draft an improved text.

The NETHERLANDS also offered their co-operation.

Action III

COMM to co-operate with UK and NL to draft an improved text for the ATEX Guidelines 3.3, taking into consideration their remarks. New proposal, to be submitted to written approbation in a 4 weeks period circulation on CIRCA.

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

Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/05

The NETHERLANDS introduced the document, on the information to be supplied by manufacturers for possible repairs, also with regard to spare parts. An amendment was proposed to ATEX Guidelines 10.1.3, in order to clarify point 1.0.6(c) of Annex II to the ATEX Directive, as well as specific actions to the ExNB Group and to CEN and CENELEC.

The UNITED KINGDOM said that this proposal would be too detailed to be included in Guidelines, with regard to expression “where appropriate” in the Directive.

GERMANY observed that specific standards were already available on this issue. In order to carry out possible repairs, detailed information would be needed, but it was not always easy to get it from manufacturers.

Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) thought that the proposal would include into the Guidelines some elements already covered by standards dealing with repair for specific equipment (in particular for electrical equipment), with or without information from manufacturer. For that, there would be no need to go further into the question.

The Chairperson agreed on the need to make reference to existing standards.

The NETHERLANDS, taking into consideration the discussion, proposed to provide a revised version of the paper, including references to relevant standards, for the next WG meeting.

This was agreed.

Action IV

NL to provide a revised version of the proposal, including references to relevant standards, to be submitted at the next WG meeting.

Borderline list for ATEX products

Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/06

SWEDEN introduced the revised version of the borderline list for ATEX products, according to comments provided during and after the previous WG meeting. It could not be considered complete and exhaustive of course, but it was submitted for confirmation and publication on the EUROPA website.

The NETHERLANDS appreciated the list, but asked to add, in “Components - Conduits/Pipes”, a mention to the stopping system.

Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) said that the term “conduit” had been chosen in general, for electric cables and other equipment: it could lead to misunderstanding, without further explanation on the kind of conduit.

FRANCE agreed on the need to add a mention to the access to those conduits, with the flameproof enclosure, indicating that this would be covered by the scope of direct application.

SWEDEN recalled previous discussions, also on flameproof enclosures. They would update the list, according to suggestions provided, to approve and publish it.

The Chairperson noted the agreement on the list, as revised according Dutch and French comments. The updated list would be published on the ATEX website on EUROPA[2].

Action V

SE to update the list taking into consideration NL and FR comments.

COMM to publish the updated list on the ATEX website on EUROPA.

Notified Bodies of Category 3 EC-Type Examination Certificates - ATEX Guidelines 10.2

Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/06

UK proposal to re-draft ATEX Guidelines 10.2 - Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/07

The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the new paper with a proposal to re-draft ATEX Guidelines 10.2, based on their experience, in order to better explain the previous note and to offer guidance with regard to specific situation.

The NETHERLANDS pointed out a possible contradiction in the text in the case of products covered by more than one category, 2 and 3.

The UNITED KINGDOM proposed to further check the text, and include there some contents from point 6 “Complex cases” of Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/06.

Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) also thought that the proposed text should be clarified in this case for products of category 2 and 3, or parts of a product according to their use.

The Chairperson noted the general agreement to ask the UNITED KINGDOM to clarify the text of the proposal, to be submitted at the next WG meeting for approval.

Action VI

UK to clarify the text of the proposal with regard to products of more than one Category, to be submitted at the next WG meeting.

Definition of non-electrical equipment

Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/08

SWEDENintroduced the paper, informing that the CEN Technical Committee dealing with non-electrical equipment would change the current definition of “non-electrical equipment” in the revision of the standard EN 13463-1[3], in a sense that could create some confusion. They asked the Member States to reply to CEN by proposing an alternative solution, as proposed in the paper.

GERMANY said that definition of non-electrical equipment could be found in standards and guidelines; new definitions could lead to not clear or incoherent situations. The decision of CEN TC 305 was related to the issue of generators, but it would not be convenient to discuss of the issue in the Working Group, as it was very technical and it would be very difficult to find a solution.

Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) thought that both definitions could be valid.

The Chairperson suggested to SWEDEN contacting directly with the CEN TC 305 in order to submit their proposal.

SWEDEN agreed and invited also the other Member States to participate.

Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) said that there were no opportunities to modify the revised standard. He had revised the standard, being aware of Swedish concerns on different definitions.

The Chairperson thanked all the contributions, hoping that these concerns could not lead to challenge the new standard later on.

How should the directive be applied to filter units and vented silo bins? (proposed revision of the Consideration Paper on Filter Units)

Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/10

GERMANYintroduced the paper, already submitted to the ADCO group, as an extension of the current Consideration Sheet on Filter Units[4]. They recalled discussions on equipment connected to silos (silo bins), with some interpretation problems, and asked for contributions and remarks from the other members of the Working Group.

ITALY considered useful the extension of the current Consideration Sheet on filter units to silo bins, but asked for clarification on some changes, as for example the cut of the final paragraph in point 2).

Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) also noted the missing part in point 2) as well as other possible errors and confusions in the new proposed draft of the document, a too long one.

The Chairperson said that the Commission would check the current Consideration Paper on Filter Units with regard to its contents and the German proposal, and asked to all the members, in particular to GERMANY and the CEN/CENELEC Consultant, to contribute to improve the proposal, to be followed up at the next WG meeting.

Action VII

COMM to check the current Consideration Paper on Filter Units.

ALL to contribute to improve the proposal, to be followed up at the next WG meeting.

Treatment of obsolescence of harmonised standards by notified bodies (proposed addition to ATEX Guidelines 10.4)

Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/13

The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the paper, proposing ad addition and re-draft of the ATEX Guidelines 10.4, on the need to establish a clear common policy by Notified Bodies with obsolete harmonised standards, also in line with the re-draft of ATEX Guidelines 10.3.

GERMANY asked for the real need for the addition of a new “10.4”, as 10.3 already dealt with the issue of the state of the art. They recalled that standards were periodically revised, and when significant changes took place, it has been agreed to indicate it in the foreword. For that, there would not be any reason to add this paragraph to the ATEX Guidelines.

Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) observed that the expression “… demonstrates conformity with the new version of the standard”, included in the proposal, would not be in line with the Directive: conformity should be demonstrated with the essential requirement of the Directive, and then it should be checked in the new version of the standard, taking into consideration the state of the art. About new standards, he confirmed that an indication on significant changes would be added by the ESO’s.

The NETHERLANDS agreed with GERMANY, as 10.4 would deal with the need for a manufacturer to confirm the result of its assessment with a Notified Body; but 10.3 should already cover all the aspect related to changes in the state of the art.

DENMARK observed that the proposal would not be in line with Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/12[5]with three cases of practical application of the revised 10.3 of the ATEX Guidelines. The manufacturer could decide to ask for verification to a Notified Body, but in the proposal it would be stated as “compulsory”.

The UNITED KINGDOM replied that they had drafted the proposal with the aim to clarify some conflictive points, not to extend 10.3, for common guidance when there would not be any change in the state of the art.

FRANCE observed that the indication about changes in the state of the art would be applied in the future for new standards, not for the past ones; for that, they submitted that paper on “Substantial modifications… from EN 50014 to EN 60079” (ATEX_WG/07/2/10).

The Chairperson noted the general agreement on take apart the UK proposal, to follow up the situation on the application of the revised 10.3 and the indication in the foreword of new standards.

4. Progress on standardisation

ATEX Harmonized Standards

The Chairperson recalled that the lastconsolidated list of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on 11 April 2008 (see EUROPA website)[6], in 22 official languages. Next list would be published as soon as possible, probably in July or August 2008.

Standardisation work in CEN TC 305

Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305)orally reported on activities of the CEN Technical Committee 305. A written report would be made available on CIRCA.

Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31

Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) orally reported on activities of the CENELEC Technical Committee 31. No relevant activity had been performed with regard to the previous period. In some cases, there were some delays in production of new standards, as fewer harmonised standards were being used in support of the Directive; it would not be a convenient situation. Other standards not published yet in April would be included in next sending by CENELEC. He mentioned also some problems with supersession dates from standard series EN 50014 to seriesEN 60079.