Re: Manufacturer - Supplier Relation Under Atex
ATEX is a Health and Safety issue. As such it is the responsibility of the Employer to risk assess his working area. As a result of this risk assessment he may declare and area or areas as Zones under ATEX.
If he has declared an ATEX Zone then any equipment purchased for that Zone has to be compliant, the manufacturer being told the Zone into which the equipment is to be installed as part of the equipment specification. It is NOT for the manufacturer/supplier to risk assess and define the Zone, only to ensure that his equipment is compliant with what has been specified. ■
Re: Manufacturer - Supplier Relation Under Atex
First of all I really appreciate your response, designer.
Are you sure that the "buyer" needs to define the zone inside a Silo of sugar that he wants to order (which is part of a complete system) or inside zone of a bag filter of CaCO3 that is part of the system he wants to purchase?
Thank you in advance for your response,
Kyr ■
Re: Manufacturer - Supplier Relation Under Atex
Designer is correct, it is the EMPLOYER (the person or organisation who employs the people who operate the equipment) who is responsible for defining zones.
Not the BUYER as you state, the BUYER may or may not be the EMPLOYER.
The EMPLOYER can of course use an expert to give him advice and recommendations, that expert could be the equipment supplier but ultimately the responsibility rests with the EMPLOYER, he is ultimately responsible for the safety of his employees. ■
Re: Manufacturer - Supplier Relation Under Atex
The question of Zone classification INSIDE a piece of materials handling equipment is an interesting one.
It had been my, pragmatic, view that the manufacturer of the equipment should be the one who defines the Zone INSIDE the equipment (the end user defining the Zone OUTSIDE into which the equipment is to be installed). My reasoning is that it is the manufacturer who best understands what is going on INSIDE the equipment. The end user may not even have seen a piece of equipment in the past, much less understand what goes on. Even the use by the user of a "consultant" is not a guarantee. ■
Re: Manufacturer - Supplier Relation Under Atex
Designer,
I would guess you are from an equipment supplier background and have seen some less than competentent purchasers?
I have worked on both the supplier and purchaser side of the fence and have supplied to less than competent purchasers and bought from suppliers who I subsequently realised were less competent than I had originally thought.
My understanding of the legal position is that it is the clear responsiblity of the EMPLOYER to zone areas and I think that this is the correct arrangement. It should be the EMPLOYER, who knows most about the whole process, who is responsible.
For example, it is the EMPLOYER who should know that an upstream process upset could on occassion cause generation of fines and a potential dust explosion hazard inside a vessel isn't it? The supplier of the vessel would only know if he was told by the employer.
Taking another example, an EMPLOYER gets a local mechanical draftsman to produce a drawing of a simple of chute / vertical pipe between two pieces of equipment. He sends the drawing to to a local jobbing fabricator to make it and then buys a level indicator to go into the side of the chute. Surely we would not expect the jobbing fabricator, who is the manufacturer of the piece of equipment to be responsible for zoning it internally? ■
Re: Manufacturer - Supplier Relation Under Atex
As far as my understanding is that the ultimate responsibility lies with the Employer and they are responsible for zoning the whole plant. They can employ external help to do the ATEX zoning if they are not competent but the responsibility will still lie with the employer.
From the seller point of view it is seller’s responsibility to supply equipment which is fit for purpose. I think if someone is buying small kit e.g. level switch etc. then it is buyer’s duty to specify if ATEX applies and CAT’s required. But if some one is buying significant kit e.g. a silo with discharger then the supplier should make sure the equipment which is installed on the silo is fit for purpose. For this the employer should provide upstream and downstream process details.
The employer should then review again to check for propagation between significant inventories as some further equipment might be required in between two inventories. ATEX is still trickling down and people have their own interpretations. It will take a few years before everything settles in. ■
Re: Manufacturer - Supplier Relation Under Atex
Originally posted by Mantoo
ATEX is still trickling down and people have their own interpretations. It will take a few years before everything settles in.
Ain't that the truth!! ■
Re: Manufacturer - Supplier Relation Under Atex
Quite interestig subject ■
Manufacturer - supplier relation under ATEX
I work for a small bulk handling manufacturing company. Recently our core business are small scale 'turn key' projects in the field of bulk handling. Normally, we buy from European manufacturers all related equipments (screws, shifters, weighers, blowers etc) and we manufacture small bins, silos etc.
I am reading ATEX related documentation and I am little confused regarding customers definitions of ATEX zones and manufacturers obligation to state his equipment.
In simple terms:
1. Should we as a company define ATEX zones for the customer or not?
2. Should we state ATEX category/classification of each of our equipment included in a small complete system? No matter if our customer do not ask for it? No matter if our customer do not know the zones?
3. I am very interesting to understand how can we evaluate or classify non mechanical equipment ex. silos. Normally the only thing we know from the customer is the product to be stored inside and the volume requirements. Should we make any risk assesment of potential explosion or not? or this is customer's obligation?
If someone has more experience in this field I would really appreciate your help.
Thanks in advance,
Kyr ■