Legislation, Standards and Technology

The explosion protection document

according to VEXAT in Austria
A report on 7 years experience
by Rudolf Hofer
Two EU directives are of relevance for explosion protection:
> The Directive 94/9/EC [1] on placing equipment and protective systems into the market, unofficial working title ATEX 95.
> The Directive 1999/92/EC [2] for users and
operators, unofficial working title ATEX
137.
The initial difficulties of national implementation of these directives by the due date
of 20.6.2003 are long past, if not entirely forgotten.
Where ATEX 137 was implemented punctually in Germany on 2. 10. 2002 via the Betriebssicherheitsverordnung (BetrSichV)
(German Ordinance on Operational Safety
and Health) [3], it took until 1 August 2004 in
Austria to have the Verordnung explosionsfhige Atmosphre (VEXAT) ( Ordinance on
Explosive Atmospheres) [4] implemented.
There are considerable differences between VEXAT and BetrSichV. Compared with
VEXAT, which as the name implies is a
regulation for explosive atmospheres, the
BetrSichV also refers to a multitude of nonexplosion hazardous plants. The BetrSichV
combines several EU health and safety directives and transfers them into German Law.
Exempted applications in Directive 99/92
EC are also exempted in the BetrSichV,
whereas VEXAT includes regulations for
these areas, such as medical, mining, drilling
and processing operations. In terms of explosion protection, the BetrSichV complies to
the letter with the wordings of the directive,
the exception being Section 3 Special requirements for plants requiring surveillance
by a public authority , which also includes
installations in explosion hazardous area In
this section the right is exercised to exceed
the minimum requirements of the directive.

Page 58 | Ex-Magazine 2011

The requirements of the BetrSichV are supplemented and more precisely specified by
the Technische Regeln Betiebssicherheit
(Technical Rules on Operational Safety), i.e.
TRBS 2152 Parts 1- 4 Gefhrliche explosionfhige Athmosphre (hazardous explosive atmosphere) [5], which have ordinance character. In contrast, VEXAT exceeds the
minimum requirements considerably with detailed regulations and includes previously existing regulations on explosion protection.

Specifics for Austria

Basics
Basics for the explosion protection document (ExPD) include 4 and 5 of VEXAT. Observant readers will notice the fact that these
texts incorporate the BGR 104 Explosionschutz Regeln EX-RL (Explosion Protection
Regulations), Section E 6 [6].
In Germany and Austria the legal status of
employee protection differs. For example, the
Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt AUVA
(National Accident Insurance Institution)
does not have the right to issue binding regulations such as the BGR 104 Explosionsschutz
Regeln (EX-RL) compared with the German
Employees' Liability Insurance Association
(Berufsgenossenschaft BG). However, in the
last review of the EX-RL, the Technische
Regeln fr Betriebssicherheit (Technical
Regulation for Operational Safety) TRBS 2152
was incorporated verbatim. As this regulation is a supplement to the BetrSichV, the
BGR 104 has thus been become legally binding.
There is no TRBS specific to the explosion
protection document and the explosion protection regulations of the BG under section E
6 include the wording of the ATEX Directive

1999/92/EC and the BetrSichV respectively.

The example given there for preparing an explosion protection document is merely a proposal and not binding. In comparison the
VEXAT defines detailed requirements for the
ExPD.
This results in a somewhat different construction principle of employee protection.
This is quite natural for regulations, which
are based on Article 137 of the EU Treaty.
Therefore it is possible that explosion protection documents according to German guidelines do not meet VEXAT requirements. One
should therefore be warned prior to adopting
working aids for preparing ExPD's on a oneto-one basis without due consideration.
Implementation
The requirement for preparing explosion
protection documents, also for so-called existing installations (before 1.August 2004),
was met with little enthusiasm despite a
generous transition period of 2 years. For
several safety-oriented companies this did
not present any difficulties. However, the
great majority of affected businesses had a
negative attitude to this necessity. It was only after pressure from various authorities
and with considerable delay but even
greater pressure by the property insurers
-that the displeased majority of affected businesses started to move. Even until today, a
number of relevant companies have not succeeded in preparing an explosion protection
document. In my experience, this is due to
the less than positive attitude in certain business circles. The bureaucrats in Brussels,
as the saying goes, have gone to town again
and we can do all the work at our expense in
these economically difficult times without
seeing anything positive come out of it.
To come to grips with this painful chore
as fast as possible, there was an unmistakable call for forms with simple tick boxes, al-

lowing for simple completion of the task.

Recognition of these papers by the authorities is, unfortunately,often not forthcoming,
as the ticked boxes are not substantiated
with the necessary documentation. Forms
imply non-existing safety. Users believe they
no longer have to think. This is an old problem, and one that does not only relate to explosion protection. To quote Wilhelm Busch:
Oft ist das Denken schwer, indes das
Schreiben geht auch ohne es (Thinking is often quite difficult, but - writing without thinking is easy).
Far more significant is the lack of qualifications of the authors of explosion protection
documents. The selection of suitable persons
or service providers is the responsibility of
the employer, without legal restrictions. In
most cases this is the most senior person
listed in the trade register who is allowed to
conduct business on behalf of the company.
Less senior persons may also possibly
make such decisions through separate delegation of responsibility to the 2nd level of
management. In other words: commercial
decision makers devoid of technical knowledge would in the end decide on who prepares the explosion protection document
along the lines of the least expensive
person is the best.
As a consequence, external service providers compete at levels of low qualifications
and quality. Today in Austria, any technical
office can develop activities in this field without having to provide qualifications in explosion protection. These offices are commercially adept, but often not competent
professionally. Regulations as stipulated in
the German TRBS 1203 Befhigte Personen
(Competent Persons) [7] on the necessity of
knowledge and their approval by authorities
are lacking in Austria, and this is truly an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Legal requirements for ExPD

These can be read up under 5 Section 2
of VEXAT:
(2) In every case the explosion protection
document must give information on:
1. the determined explosion hazards,
especially in the case of
a.
normal operation
b foreseeable faults, maintenance,
cleaning, inspection and faults
recovery.
c. works according to 6 Section 3.
2. the primary, secondary and construc-
tional explosion protection measures to
prevent hazards, including measures and
precautions for foreseeable faults, main-
tenance, cleaning, inspection and
recovery of faults.
3. local determination of hazardous areas
and their classification in zones.
4. suitability of the used work equipment,
electrical installations, workwear and
personal protective equipment used in the
corresponding explosive areas, as well as
on safety devices, controlling devices and
regulating devices for use outside the
potentially explosive atmospheres, but
required for or contribute to the safe
operation in hazardous areas.
5. Scope and results of inspections and
measurements in conjunction with
hazardous areas.
6. the technical and organizational
precautions and measures to be conduct-
ed to avoid explosions in case of
warning or alarm conditions.
7. Works according to 6 Section 3.
8. Information on objectives,
measures nd modalities of coordination if
external employees are employed on the

site.

Ex-Magazine 2011 | Page 59

The explosion document according to VEXTAT in Austria

By preparing an ExPD according to this

model, one can be sure that it is correct and
beyond reproach.
Recommendations to avoid frequent errors
If in case of multiple similar installations
there is a call for standardized working documentation, this is perfectly legitimate and a
path that can be taken. However, nobody is
spared from thinking and getting deeply involved in terms of technical actualities. The
risk of superficiality must be countered by
special diligence.

Blueprint for a good explosion protection

document according to 5 Section 2 VEXAT
Information on documents used
Laws, regulations, standards, rules governing
technology, notifications from authorities are
to be listed.
Brief description
The brief description should contain the
facts without unnecessary embroidery.
Copying pages and pages of regulations,
standards, essays and the like are completely superfluous in an ExPD. Often one finds
such discourses as exaggerated ExPD's
which attempt to impress following the motto
the fatter the file, the more competent the
author. If brief descriptions already exist in
company documents, i.e. in notifications from
authorities, then it is permissible to refer to
these without having to copy them again. Any
necessary explosion protection-related technical modifications need to be added.
Working substances and their technical
safety characteristics
These considerations must always be at
the beginning. However, sometimes, having
worked through a number of possible sce-

Page 60 | Ex-Magazine 2011

narios, one discovers that the substance in

question is not even capable of creating an
explosive atmosphere when mixed with air at
the given composition.
Not every material that cannot be found
one-to-one in the literature needs to be dismissed by the notified bodies. There are less
expensive ways to obtain clarity. To avoid
any confusion it is recommended that the
characteristics for gases, vapours, dust be
given separately. This avoids foolish data:
Flashpoints for dust, particle size distribution
in vapours, smoldering temperature for gases
and many other examples.
The explosion protection document
Following the above considerations one can
commence preparing the actual explosion
protection document. As guidance, the structure of 5 Section 2 of VEXAT is recommended, along with the following detailed comments:
> Classification of zones
Often zones are defined without mention-
ing the source for these considerations
(i.e.. BGR 104 Collection of examples blue
or green, standards, state-of-art technolo-
gy). This makes things difficult to follow.
Often the publication date of the source is
of significance. Note: most of the exam-
ples for Ex zones given in Austrian laws
and standards, but also those zone exam-
ples in the BGR, TRbF [8] etc. appear ex-
treme in some contexts, almost exagger
ated and out of touch with reality. If you
don't believe it, you are welcome to re-
check, astonishment guaranteed.
However, the inclusion of exaggerated Ex
zones leads to considerable increases in
cost for the required refitting without of
fering the slightest advance in technical
safety.

Overcautious authors say this lets you

sleep better. I can only see 3 answers for
treating insomnia:
> improving specialist knowledge
>
admitting to being out of one's depth
and letting it be
> visit a doctor's practice.
One thing is for certain, any type of
sleepiness which includes missing
out is highly inappropriate in safety tech-
nology.
> Suitability of equipment
Determining the suitability of equipment in
the various zones is one of the
most difficult tasks for old plants. The term
protection of existing installation which
is common in Germany and assumes that
all applicable regulations were complied
with during the erection phase, does not
exist in Austria. The principle of acquired
rights is however part of the federal con-
stitution. In concrete cases this must be
proven by unequivocal notifications from
authorities. Furthermore, the mentioned
term has been partially undermined by the
new EU legal system, and refitting is defi-
nitely demanded for a number of specific
special plants. The competent ministry
has issued an appropriate decree on in
terpretation.
> Results of assessments
The relevant 7 Section 1 of VEXAT lists
10 assessment items, which all need to be
addressed. The mentioned check lists of
ten include a simple tick box. No
comment.
> Instructions to employees
In addition to the generally required in
structions of 14 of the

 ASchG Arbeitnehmerschutzgesetz (Em-

ployees' Protection Law), VEXAT adds fur-
ther instructions under 6. Proof of these
instructions is not included in the text on
the explosion protection document, as
their existence is obligatory in another le-
gal regulation in order to avoid any dupli-
cation.
>

List of measures
At the end of the work on the ExPD, it is
essential to draw up this list, in which the
individual measures are clearly formulat-
ed, giving deadlines and information on
the company department responsible for
corrective measures. This provision is
missing in some work instructions and the
ExPD ends up with vague texts that prob-
ably serve to safeguard the author.
And finally, the signature of the author
and the date should not be forgotten.
Cautious experienced authors have been
known to add the column Submitted to
employer on....
The reason for this is to avoid giving cer-
tain employers the opportunity later to
claim no knowledge of this process.

Summary
After initial uncertainty, the explosion protection document is available in most companies, even if their quality leaves something to
be desired. To improve this, it is necessary
that all persons involved in explosion protection improve their state of knowledge. Deficiencies in quality resulting from commercial
pressure must be counteracted energetically.
References
[1] Directive 94/9/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 3.March 1994 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States concerning equipment and protective systems intended for use in
potentially explosive atmospheres, Official Journal of the European Communities
No. L 100/1-/29,1994
[2] Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum
requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive
atmospheres (15th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC),
Official Journal of the European Communities. L23/27-/63, 2000.
[3] Verordnung ber Sicherheit und Gesundheitsschutz bei der Bereitstellung von Arbeitsmitteln und
deren Benutzung bei der Arbeit, ber Sicherheit beim Betrieb berwachungsbedrftiger Anlagen und
ber die Organisation des betrieblichen Arbeitsschutzes (Betriebssicherheitsverordnung BetrSichV)
BGBl. I Nr.70 S.3777 vom 27.09.2002, last amended by Article 8 of the regulation dated 18. December 2008
(BGBl. I S. 2768)
[4] Verordnung explosionsfhige Atmosphren
Bundesgesetzblatt BGBL II Nr. 309/2004 vom 26.7.2004; www.ris.bka.gv.at
[5] Technische Regeln fr Betriebssicherheit TRBS 2152 Gefhrliche explosionsfhige Atmosphre
Allgemeines , Teil 1: Beurteilung der Explosionsgefhrdung, Teil 2: Vermeidung oder Einschrnkung
gefhrlicher explosionsfhiger Atmosphre, Teil 3: Vermeidung der Entzndung gefhrlicher explosionsfhiger Atmosphre, Teil 4: Manahmendes konstruktiven Explosionsschutzes, welche die Auswirkung
einer Explosion auf ein unbedenkliches Ma beschrnken; www.baua.de
[6] Berufsgenossenschaftliche Regel BRG 104 Explosionsschutz-Regeln (ExRL), Fachausschuss Chemie
[7] Technische Regeln Betriebssicherheit 1203 Befhigte Personen Allgemeine Anforderungen, Teil 1:
Besondere Anforderungen, Explosionsgefhrdung; www.baua .de
[8] Technische Regeln fr brennbare Flssigkeiten Juli 2002, BArbBl. 7-8 2002

Ex-Magazine 2011 | Page 61