Standing Committee ATEX 94/9/EC (Working Group) Brussels, 2 nd December 2004 Draft Meeting Report

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Conformity and standardisation, new approach, industries under new approach Mechanical and electrical equipment (including telecom terminal equipment) Brussels, ENTR/G/3/CM D(2004) Standing Committee ATEX 94/9/EC (Working Group) Brussels, 2 nd December 2004 Draft Meeting Report List of participants See Annex I Opening and welcome Mr Hilpert (Chair) welcomed those present. 1. Approval of draft agenda ATEX/04/2/1 rev3 The draft agenda was agreed with the only modification that a handout dealing with the consideration paper Notified Bodies and EC-Type-Examination Certificates would be discussed under item Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting ATEX/04/2/2 The minutes amended according to a request of Mr O Riordan were confirmed, and Mr Mattiuzzo went through the action points agreed at the last meeting, as follows: Action I: The paper concerning rotating mechanical seals is on the agenda under item 3.1 Action II: The paper on interfaces has been uploaded on the website Action III: The French proposals for marking of equipment have been included in chapter 11 of the new draft for the Guidelines Action IV: The draft paper on marking of components is on the agenda under item 3.2 Action V: A letter was sent to CEN and CENELEC and will be discussed under item 4 Action VI: A paper concerning explosive atmospheres inside machinery will be discussed under item 3.3 Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Bruxelles/Wetstraat 200, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium - Office: SC15 3/163. Telephone: direct line (+32-2) , switchboard Fax: Telex: COMEU B Telegraphic address: COMEUR Brussels.

2 Action VII: The paper on inerting systems has been uploaded on the website Action VIII: A table concerning the declaration of conformity has been included in chapter 10 of the new draft for the Guidelines Action IX: A clarification sheet of Ex NBG will be discussed under item 3.4 Action X: The paper concerning assemblies has been uploaded on the website Action XI: A paper on marking of assemblies will be discussed under item 3.5 Action XII: Marking of equipment having different categories has been covered in chapter 11.2 of the new draft for the Guidelines Action XIII: A paper concerning interface to potentially explosive atmospheres has been uploaded on the website 3. Scope of directive 94/9/EC, interpretation questions 3.1 Rotating mechanical seals (last meeting s Action I, outcome of the meeting in Frankfurt) ATEX/04/2/3.1 On 27 th of October a group met in the facilities of VDMA/Frankfurt and prepared this paper. Mr Tyldesley explained its content, which has been generally approved. He added that the missing of a definition of rotating mechanical seals will be send soon to the Commission services. DK suggested to modify the sentence concerning the obligations of a manufacturer of seals supplied as machinery element, because such kind of statements would be a task of the machinery committee. The group agreed that it would be sufficient to refer to the normal practice. Action I The Commission services to upload the amended paper for a 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. 3.2 Marking of components (last meeting s Action IV, Commission input commented by Germany) ATEX/04/2/3.2 The Commission services presented the paper. FR suggested to recall in the text that, according to the directive, ATEX components shall not the CE marked. A general discussion started, initiated by DE, on marking not explicitly requested by Art. 8(3) of the directive. According to DE marking of components could be misleading. In general, marking should occur only in cases when the lack of marking would compromise the free movement of goods. The Chair of ExNBG pointed out that components of 2

3 category 1 and electrical components of category 2 have to bear, for example, the NB s number, and that therefore marking cannot generally be considered as misleading. ORGALIME stressed the advantages of marked components during the maintenance of equipment. The Commission services suggested to substitute in the paper the word shall with it is recommended, in order to underline the fact that marking of components is not a legally requested requirement. Due to the positive attitude of the group to the paper, amended according to the above mentioned, also DE agreed to it provided that the inconsistency caused by the lacking legal requirement would be tackled as soon as the directive would be revised. Action II The Commission services to upload the amended paper for a 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. 3.3 Machinery containing an explosive atmosphere, which has no interface to an outside explosive atmosphere (last meeting s Action VI, Commission input) ATEX/04/2/3.3 The Commission services, having discussed the question with the colleagues from the machinery sector, explained the content of the paper. DE requested to add a clear statement that ATEX applies only, as long as atmospheric conditions in the sense of directive 94/9/EC are present in the machine. DK suggested to replace not appropriate with not necessary. This suited also to remove the concern of IT that some manufactures could misunderstand the statement not to apply the zone concept of directive 1999/92/EC as an invitation to avoid a correct explosion risk assessment. Though also paint spray booths exist where persons have access and therefore the zone concept of 1999/92/EC applies, the group preferred to maintain the first sentence in the paper for the sake of clarity. Action III The Commission services to upload the amended paper for a 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. 3.4 Notified Bodies responsibility for products with more than one category (last meeting s Action IX, input Germany-ExNBG) ATEX/04/2/3.4 The clarification sheet of the ExNBG was discussed. It has been agreed to add a statement saying Any certificate issued by the notified body should make clear which aspects of the product have been assessed by the NB, and which have been assessed by the manufacturer alone. ExNBG should withdraw its sheet as soon as the consideration paper has been published on the ATEX website. 3

4 Action IV The Commission services to upload a paper containing question, answer and example of the clarification sheet, with the above mentioned addition for a 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. Action V ExNBG to withdraw sheet N 02/109/P as soon as the consideration paper is published on the Commissions website. 3.5 Marking of assemblies (last meeting s Action XI, German input) ATEX/04/2/3.5 DE explained the paper, stressing that it is crucial to limit marking on products, and especially on assemblies, to characteristics which apply to the whole. All further details should be given in the accompanying documentation. The actual draft for the revision of the guidelines gives not yet satisfactory indication for marking of complex products. It was generally agreed that this new paper is suitable to be integrated into the guidelines, and that confusion caused by unnecessary complicated marking should be avoided. DE had detected an error (third dash of the list is not consistent with the initial statements) and that an amended version will be submitted to the Commission services. Action VI The Commission services to upload the paper, amended by DE, for a 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. 3.6 Products not in conformity with EU legislation placed on the markets of the new Member States before the date of accession ATEX/04/2/3.6 The paper was explained by the Commission services. No questions arose. 3.7 Ignition hazard (outcome CEN/TC 305 WG 3) ATEX/04/2/3.7 In the current draft for the revised ATEX guidelines the definition for simple nonelectrical products is still lacking. ExNBG had stated during its last meeting that the existing list is not suitable and potentially misleading. A more technical solution, related to the effectivity of the ignition source must be found. In this context the paper was presented by Mr Schober, secretary of CEN/TC 305. The group agreed to submit the paper to the draft WG for the revision of the guidelines, though discussion in CEN/TC 305 WG 2 is not yet completed. The latter refers especially to criteria defining whether an ignition source is present or not. It would also be too lengthy to wait for definitive answers from a relevant Machex research project. 4

5 Action VI Submission of the paper to the draft WG for the revision of the guidelines. 3.8 Treatment of cables under the directive (NO/COM input) The paper was confirmed without further discussion. ATEX/04/2/3.8 Action VII Commission services to upload it directly as a consideration paper. 4. Progress on standardisation 4.1 Letter to CEN and CENELEC ATEX/04/2/4.1.1 ATEX/04/2/4.1.2 ATEX/04/2/4.1.3 This letter was sent on a request coming from the last meeting (Action V). CEN and CENELEC answered in written (preliminarily) and reported orally on the issue. Mr Schober explained for CEN that only one standard has been identified (EN ). TC 305 WG 2 will try to improve the wording, in order to prevent any misunderstanding. The problem, however, consists in CEN only for category 1 products. The revised standard can probably published as a pren towards end of Mr O Riordan stressed that in the view of CENELEC, and also himself, the problem is due to a misuse or deliberate misinterpretation of the standards text. In any case, IEC had already recognised the problem some years ago. Under the revised rules of IEC, construction standards must cover only the construction requirements. The revised rules separate the conformity assessments requirements from construction requirements. This has been implemented in the new series of standards. As soon as the EN series replace the present EN standards listed in the OJ, no misinterpretation would be possible. Furthermore the Notified Bodies have been informed accordingly. The Chair ExNBG confirmed that all Notified Bodies would receive a letter from ExNBG, which asks them to avoid this kind of undue marking. He added that also among manufacturers some confusion regarding marking exists, and the responsibility is not always with the Notified Bodies. ORGALIME should inform the manufacturers accordingly. 4.2 Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Mr Schober reported that 4 new standards coming from TC 305 have been published and referenced in the Official Journal this year, for a total of 15 ENs. 7 projects are still under development. Concerning the internationalisation of TC 305 standards, ISO has been encouraged to start work on ATEX. Though it is not CEN s aim to have its standards taken over by IEC 5

6 TC 31, it will be up to the management of ISO and IEC to decide how the issue will be solved. The basic standard EN is currently under revision. However, major changes are expected only in the chapter dealing with definitions. A more detailed report on the present state of the standardisation work contains Annex II to these minutes. 4.3 Standardisation work in CLC TC 31 Next year all standards of the EN series will be superseded by the standards of the EN series for equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres formed by flammable gas and vapours. For equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres formed by combustible dust the relevant standards will be published under the EN series. All these standards will contain the annex ZZ indicating the compliance with relevant ESHRs of Directive 94/9/EC. For each standard of these two series cross references with ESHRs and clauses of relevant standards will be uploaded on the website of CENELEC (click on TISS and then on TC31). The standard on safety devices is already well advanced. 4.4 Verbal Report by CENELEC Consultant Mr O Riordan explained that the WG dealing with explosion barriers in the mining industry (issue has been on the agenda of the Standing Committee in July 2004) meets in the second week of December, therefore no details could be reported yet. Reporting on the future pressurisation standard, the consultant had invited CEN TC 305 WG 2 not to develop their own standard but to refer to existing work in CENELEC. This had been done successfully for the flameproof standard. It also avoided unnecessary duplication. The pressurisation standard, coming from IEC, has been finalised last year and was being prepared for use under the ATEX Directive. It should be offered to the Commission, in the coming year, for publication in the Official Journal. He reported on 10 th of August 2004 meeting of CEN TC 305 WG3/SG1 Flame Arresters held in Berlin to discuss the UK report on Flame arrestors Performance requirements. One of the authors of the HSE report attended the meeting. Five main items of the report were identified for discussion. A short excerpt of the conclusions of the meeting were as follows: 1) the slow deflagration-restriction issue is seen as one of the common residual risks of any technical system and pose no relevant danger. It is currently under investigation by CEN and ISO members with regard to practical relevance and technical enlightenment. 2) the IEC MESG ranking proved to be reasonable and safe in practice. 6

7 3) the type of ignition source, as suggested in the report, will be taken into account but for the position of the ignition source there was no need for change. Both issues were not relevant for safety but for the reproducibility of tests. 4) the proposal regarding pipe temperature and performance was not considered adequate and had no relevance for safety. 5) the suggestion on initial test pressure, in the report, will be taken into account in future amendment to the standard. The participants of the meeting concluded that, for the time being, the standard does not need immediate change, because no serious deficits have been identified. In addition dialogue was continuing, on a number of aspects, at the current ISO TC meetings on Flame Arresters with the participation of European experts. Any future amendments would be carried out with conclusion of the dialogue at ISO and would include the findings of the Berlin meeting. The consultant has also identified overlapping work of CEN and CENELEC in the field of paint spray booths. The CENELEC draft, which covered installations, was rejected by him at inquiry stage, with the request to cover the electrical equipment system for electrostatic spray guns. The CEN draft, which was being developed under the Machinery directive, covered all aspects of spray booths. CEN and CENELEC committees should have completely different scopes. Mr O Riordan will report back to the Standing Committee after further discussion with the chairmen of both sub-committees. Action VIII Consultant to report for the next SC meeting on explosion barriers in mines and overlapping standards for flame arresters. 5 Co-operation between Notified Bodies, Verbal Report by Ex NBG Chairman Mr Jockers, new chairman of ExNBG, reported that during the meeting held the 25 th and 26 th of November Notified Bodies with in total 40 representatives were present. An important item were ExNBG s rules of procedure. They will be modified, in order to refer all issues related to the interpretation of the directive immediately to the Standing Committee, and all issues related to interpretation of standards immediately to the standardisation organisations. IEC Ex was present as observer and made a presentation. An ExNBG WG will produce input for the ongoing review of EN 13980, in order to cover in the future also quality assurance requirements for non-electrical products, safety devices as well as for autonomous protective systems. As reported previously by Mr O Riordan, ExNBG will send via CIRCA a letter to all ATEX Notified Bodies, with the aim to avoid undue marking with the NB s number. ExNBG asked the SC whether the following approach concerning means and procedures for submission of instructions for use to the user was acceptable: 7

8 1. The manufacturer shall define in his procedures how to assure that the instructions will be delivered in the correct language(s) to the end user. 2. Internet is not accepted as a medium for delivering instructions or their language versions. 3. Instructions can be submitted on CD-ROM, as long as the manufacturer assures the readability throughout the lifetime of the product. Comment of the SC: DK pointed out that it cannot be accepted to deliver safety related instructions only on CD-ROM. They must be submitted (also) in a printed version. The Chair agreed, adding that this issue had already been discussed in other sectors, with the same result as highlighted by DK. Mr Jockers will give this feedback to ExNBG, in order to avoid the application of the originally envisaged proposal. Mr Jockers explained also the negative reaction of ExNBG (see paper lately uploaded on CIRCA for this meeting and also distributed during the meeting) to the consideration paper Notified Bodies and Type Examination Certificates. ExNBG especially questions: 1. What is the legal basis of the statement the certificate issued to the manufacturer remains the property of the Notified Body? 2. Which are the legal consequences of this SC s consideration paper? 3. How should the information to the manufacturer be carried out, when he is not easily found? 4. Will manufacturers be invited to wait for the action of the Notified Body instead of acting on their own? 5. Why does a sector Group like ATEX try to solve a problem, which is of horizontal nature? Comment of the SC: The group agreed to submit within 6 weeks proposals for a reaction to the Commission services. The Commission services will then, and after consulting their colleagues, draft an answer, which will be put on CIRCA. The issue is also relevant for the revision of the Guidelines. 6 Ex NBG sheets to be noted ATEX/04/2/6 ExNBG intends to review its clarification sheets yearly, in order to check their validity. In this context, a Notified Bodies CIRCA site containing all valid clarification sheets will be established by the ExNB Technical Secretariat. ExNBG will also provide for a comprehensive list of sheets having relevance for the Standing Committee (i.e. not dealing with technical details, standards interpretation or practical application of conformity assessment modules). Mr Jockers estimated a number of approximately 40 such sheets, out of a total of about 140. Comment of the SC: This step is welcomed, and will allow the Commission services to put those sheets also on the ATEX CIRCA site. Applying a 4 weeks period, the Standing Committee members would express their opinion, on whether these sheets are relevant for the SC. The relevant sheets will be discussed during a SC meeting and possibly noted. Action IX Commission services to upload the sheets indicated by ExNBG on CIRCA as soon as they are available. 8

9 7 Verbal Report by Chair ATEX ADCO Mr Ostermann (DE) reported that the following was discussed the day before: ICSMS now also works for ATEX. ICSMS is widely used by the market surveillance authorities which participate, and has already proved its value. It has been mentioned that CIRCA and RAPEX are systems with different scopes and cannot be directly compared with ICSMS. However, an electronic interface between RAPEX and ICSMS has already been realised, which will facilitate the work of the authorities currently forced to carry out double work. Concerning the application of the Directive to self-manufactured products, Germany on one side and the European Commission with most of the member states on the other side have differing positions. The Commission s legal service will provide for an answer, which hopefully will resolve the issue. Marking was extensively discussed as a preparation for the Standing Committee. The representatives of the market surveillance authorities underlined that clear distinction must be made between compulsory marking according to the directive and any voluntary marking. In Germany and Slovenia Notified Bodies publish information regarding EC-type examination certificates. France envisages the same. Market surveillance authorities basically welcome such a publication and will approach the Notified Bodies accordingly. The representatives of the market surveillance authorities are of the opinion that a kind of standardised declaration of conformity would not be helpful. It was more appropriate to include some explanation with regard to requirements coming from Directive 94/9/EC in the revised guidelines. It has been confirmed that an importer is obliged to keep the technical file of an ATEX product, if neither the manufacturer neither an authorised representative is established on the EU territory. This applies also in cases, when a technically identical product was already been imported under another brand name. The absence of safeguard clauses and possible reasons were discussed, too. An ADCO WG will be set up, in order to find solutions to cope with the lack of information due to the missing application of the formal procedure, and to find alternative ways for the exchange of information between member states. This concerns especially situations, when authorities found an amicable solution with the manufacturer/importer and did therefore not apply the safeguard clause. It was underlined that no confusion between obligatory and voluntary certification shall be created on products and certificates. Market surveillance authorities will pay attention that voluntary certificates are clearly distinguishable from certificates according to Directive 94/9/EC. Also the rising demand from users for ATEX certificates for non-atex products was stressed. The ADCO group agreed that no such certificates are acceptable and that users must be better informed on the basic principles, in order to create a kind of ATEX culture, which seems still to be missing. A new chair (UK) was elected. Chairman for the next two meetings will be Mr Iain Nicol from DTI. The next ADCO meeting will probably held in Liverpool in mid- June

10 8 Draft Working Group (Revision of Guide) plus an additional UK paper to be integrated ATEX/04/2/8.1 ATEX/04/2/8.2 ATEX/04/2/8.3 The members of the draft Working Group for the revision of the ATEX Guidelines met in the VDMA facilities in Frankfurt/Main. They managed, despite the amount of comments received, to make a big step forward and to discuss all of them. The results of the discussion are reflected in the paper ATEX/04/2/8.3 (collation of comments with decisions) and the new draft ATEX/04/2/8.1. The aim is to include as many of the consideration papers as possible and to leave only the too specific ones. Three remaining questions and answers will be published as consideration papers and cancelled in the guidelines text. Probably one further meeting of the draft WG is necessary to complete the drafting. A meeting will be convened towards march in Brussels. UK presented a paper (ATEX/04/2/8.2) with examples of how the interface paper should apply. DK pointed out that the third example is not appropriate, especially because milk spray driers are normally not ATEX equipment. The group agreed to include the first two examples into the Guide together with the interface paper. It is actually the aim and general policy of the Commission Services to keep Guidelines as live as possible. Furthermore it must be considered that there are 20 official languages. Therefore, it is envisaged to publish the revised Guidelines only on the internet and only in English language. Most probably there will be a html file, regularly updated and, as far as suitable, publishing of consideration papers will be avoided. Consideration papers will still be uploaded for too specific issues. The Guidelines should be formally approved next summer. This formally approved text will be placed on the Commission s website as a pdf-file, which can easily be printed out. The live document will be the html-file. When suitable, the amendments of the html-file can be formally approved, leading to a third edition (and so on). FR pointed out that there could be some embarrassment in France for the missing translation. The Commission services underlined, however, that, given the impossibility to have the extensive text translated into 20 languages in a reasonable time and in the light of financial restraints, it would not be adequate to privilege one or more languages with a translation. As soon as the consideration papers are included in the draft, the Commission services will upload the document on CIRCA together with the table for comments, in order to get some final comments (hopefully little, because the following draft will be the final one). Deadline will be the 7th of February Action X Commission services to upload the completed draft on CIRCA together with the table for comments. 10

11 9 ATEX 137 Directive, Verbal Report by DG EMPL No representative of DG employment was present. DG ENTR reported that presently no desk officer is assigned to the ATEX 137 Directive, and that the contact person for the moment is Mr Biosca, head of the unit in charge. DG ENTR will try to get feedback for further collaboration, e.g. concerning the new guidelines, or interpretation questions touching the borderline between the two directives. 10 AOB Mrs Wasserberg (UK) and Mr Federici (IT) participated for the last time at the ATEX Standing Committee group. The Commission services thanked them for their pleasant and fruitful collaboration and wished them the best for their future. 11 Confirmation of next meeting dates 30 th of June 2005 and 1 st of December 2005 were agreed. Both of the dates to be confirmed 4 weeks before! Annex I Participants Annex II Report on Standardisation work in CEN TC

12

13

14

15

16

17 Date CEN/TC 305 N XXX "Potentially explosive atmospheres Explosion prevention and protection" Report of the Secretariat on Activities of CEN/TC 305 "Potentially explosive atmospheres Explosion prevention and protection" (as at ) 1 Constitution Scope Standardisation in the field of explosion prevention and protection. Drawing up of standards relating to test methods for determining the flammability characteristics of substances, equipment and protective systems for use in potentially explosive atmospheres, equipment and systems for explosion prevention and protection and terminology and methodology in the field of potentially explosive atmospheres. Members of CEN/TC 305 are the 28 member bodies of CEN, the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. Affiliate to CEN/TC 305: Croatia Chairman of CEN/TC 305: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Siegfried Radandt, Germany Secretariat of CEN/TC 305: Dipl.-Ing. Ulrich Schober, DIN, Germany. Liaisons: Commission of the European Communities (CEC) European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) European Trade Union Technical Bureau for Health and Safety (TUTB) CENELEC/TC 31 Electrical apparatus for explosive atmospheres: General requirements CEN/TC 69 Industrial valves CEN/TC 153 Food processing machinery - Safety and hygiene specifications CEN/TC 191 Fixed fire fighting systems CEN/TC 196 Machines for underground mines Safety CEN/TC 197 Pumps CEN/TC 270 Internal combustion engines SECRETARIAT DIN DEUTSCHES INSTITUT FÜR NORMUNG e.v. mailing address: Berlin Tel: Fax:

18 2 Organization The following working groups are set up under CEN/TC 305: WG 1 WG 2 WG 3 WG 4 WG 5 Test methods for determining the flammability characteristics of substances Convener: Dr. Roland Ott, Switzerland Secretariat: SNV, Dr. Luca Rossinelli Equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres Convener: Dr. Richard L. Rogers, United Kingdom Secretariat: DIN, Ulrich Schober Devices and systems for explosion prevention and protection Convener: Dr. Kees van Wingerden, Norway Secretariat: DIN, Horst Albrecht Terminology and Methodology Convener: Dr. Frank Hauert, Germany Secretariat: DIN, Ulrich Schober Equipment and protection systems for mining Convener: Dr. Elmar Fuchs, Germany Secretariat: DIN, Hans Georg Blasgude 3 Plenary meetings 1 st Mannheim, Germany /06 Report: N 19 2 nd St. Denijs, Belgium /23 Report: N 43 3 rd Antwerp, Belgium /07 Report: N 70 4 th Bergen, Norway /22 Report: N th Lucerne, Switzerland /08 Report: N th Paris, France Report: N th London, United Kingdom /26 Report: N th Berlin, Germany /07 Report: N th Mannheim, Germany Report: N th Oslo, Norway Report: N 483 2

19 4 Published standards (15) EN : WG 4 Explosive atmospheres Explosion prevention and protection Part 1: Basic concepts and methodology EN : WG 5 Explosive atmospheres Explosion prevention and protection Part 2: Basic concepts and methodology for mining EN 1839: WG 1 Determination of explosion limits of gases and vapours EN 12874: WG 3 Flame arresters Performance requirements, test methods and limits for use EN 13237: WG 4 Potentially explosive atmospheres Terms and definitions for equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres EN : Corrigendum: WG 2 Non-electrical equipment for potentially explosive atmospheres Part 1: Basic method and requirements EN : WG 2 Non-electrical equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres Part 2: Protection by flow restricting enclosure 'fr' EN : WG 2 "Non-electrical equipment for potentially explosive atmospheres Part 5: Protection by constructional safety 'c' EN : WG 2 Non-electrical equipment for potentially explosive atmospheres Part 8: Protection by liquid immersion 'k' EN : WG 1 Determination of the maximum explosion pressure and the maximum rate of pressure rise of gases and vapours Part 1: Determination of the maximum explosion pressure EN 13821: WG 1 Potentially explosive atmospheres Explosion prevention and protection Determination of minimum ignition energy of dust/ air mixtures EN 13980: WG 4 Potentially explosive atmospheres Application of quality systems EN : WG 1 Determination of explosion characteristics of dust clouds Part 1: Determination of the maximum explosion pressure p max of dust clouds EN : WG 1 Determination of explosion characteristics of dust clouds Part 4: Determination of the limiting oxygen concentration LOC of dust clouds EN : WG 5 Explosion prevention and protection in underground mines Protective systems Part 1: 2-bar explosion proof ventilation structure 3

20 5 Diagram of project stages The work program comprises 27 active projects and 15 finalised European Standards (EN). 36% 21% working document during enquiry enquiry passed 10% formal vote 0% 0% 33% formal vote ended EN available Figures: working document enquiry enquiry passed 9 (21 %) 4 (10 %) 14 (33 %) formal vote 0 (0 %) formal vote ended 0 (0 %) EN available 15 (36 %) Projects: Standards: WI 38 (305 N195) WI 47 ( ) WI 65 ( , N482) WI 72 (305 N391) WI 80(1127-1rev, N430) WI 81 (TR; N428) WI 82 (305 N448) WI 83 (305 N424) WI ( revision)