No backtracking on safety, please!

In theory it seems clear enough. Safety technology needs to be harmonized across European production plants for the benefit of workers and the general public, and to guarantee free movement of goods within the European Union. EU directive 94/9/EG, also known as Atex 100a, aimed to do exactly that when it came into force on July 1st, 2003. The directive extends the requirement for type approval to cover equipment that is not primarily electrical, such as mixers, and it defines for the first time the responsibility of equipment users as well as manufacturers.

As the end of the seven-year (!) phase-in period drew near, then, it would have been logical to assume that everyone had done their homework. But no! Despite the fact that the directive was an important topic in magazines (several articles appeared in PROCESS worldwide) and at seminars and trade fairs, there is still uncertainty in some areas–nearly a year after Atex became law. A dialog between manufacturers and users ought to straighten things out, but in practice each side seem to be more concerned with offloading responsibilities onto the other. Which products are you going to handle in the future? Will the recipe change? Have you done your zoning properly? “Give me that in writing” seems to be one of the commonest demands.
Atex brought no real changes to the technical requirements for safety, but it has created real insecurity among engineers responsible for choosing equipment. Now that the new directive is in force, specifiers have to look more closely at the innards of whatever they are buying. Unless the combination of equipment, process and materials is clearly hazard-free (and who can ever be sure of that?), then the only legal course is to opt for a more expensive design. “We design our mixers for use in a variety of applications. We can’t afford a one-size-fits-all design that would withstand the hazards of the most demanding zones. If we did that, we would no longer be competitive,” explained one manufacturer.

The greatest danger, however, comes when a vendor and a user who are both willing to take risks get together. Pressure on both sides to succeed and to minimize costs can tempt those in charge to agree on the lowest common denominator, and plant safety suffers. “We have customers who are reluctant to accept the cost of zone 20 or 21 equipment. They told us: ‘Zone 22 has to be good enough’,” another manufacturer complained recently. “But our investigation showed that we couldn’t take the responsibility for zone 22, so we designed the device for zone 21. The customer wasn’t happy.”
We can only hope that there are more responsible companies in Europe that are willing to take the risk of losing a contract, so that there will be no backtracking on safety!

- Frank Jablonski -