Is a 2012 installation still demonstrably safe today?
The installation had been running for more than ten years without any major incidents. Operators knew the process, maintenance was carried out when required, and on paper everything appeared to be under control.
During an inspection, however, an uncomfortable silence arose. Not because of a defective motor or a visible dust cloud, but because of a much simpler question:
“How do we demonstrate today that this installation is still explosion-safe?”
That moment is occurring in more and more companies. Especially in food processing, chemicals, recycling and pilot plants, a growing gap is emerging between installations that still function technically and installations that can be demonstrated to meet the current state of the art and applicable legal requirements.
Many installations were designed at a time when the main focus was on installing certified equipment. An Ex motor, an Ex terminal box or an Ex dust extraction unit created confidence. But explosion safety has never been only about a nameplate.
In practice, an installation changes continuously. Products are changed, ventilation is modified, sensors are replaced, pipework is rerouted and software is expanded. Small modifications may appear harmless when considered individually, but together they often change the original safety concept.
That is where the real risk arises.
During inspections, documentation is regularly found to no longer match the actual installation. Hazardous area classifications were once prepared but were never reviewed after the process changed. Cable glands were replaced without verification of temperature class, ingress protection or suitability for the protection concept. Temporary installations became permanent. Maintenance was carried out correctly from a mechanical or electrical perspective, but without assessing its consequences for explosion safety.
The installation still works.
Only the evidence slowly disappears into the background.
This is becoming increasingly relevant as companies accelerate decarbonisation, expansion and automation. New raw materials, higher capacities, ethanol, hydrogen carriers, battery storage systems and finer powders mean that old assumptions are not always valid anymore.
Within the European framework, ATEX Directive 1999/92/EC requires employers to assess explosion risks, classify hazardous areas where necessary and define appropriate technical and organisational protective measures. Equipment and protective systems placed on the EU market must meet the requirements of ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU. In the United Kingdom, the operational duty is reflected through DSEAR, while equipment placed on the GB market falls under the Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2016.
For electrical installations in explosive atmospheres, EN IEC 60079-14 places strong emphasis on correct selection, installation, documentation, verification and the competence of persons involved. EN IEC 60079-17 then provides the framework for inspection and maintenance throughout the life of the installation. For repairs, overhaul and reclamation of Ex equipment, EN IEC 60079-19 becomes relevant. Together, these standards make one point very clear: explosion safety is not a one-off project, but a lifecycle discipline.
The biggest problems often do not arise in completely new installations. They arise in installations that have “always worked well”. Hidden inside them are years of small changes: an additional dosing line, a different fan, new sensors, a bypass, a temporary solution that quietly became permanent.
Individually, nobody sees a major hazard. Until an audit or incident reveals that nobody can still explain exactly why the installation is safe today.
That is where the difference lies between formal compliance and demonstrable control.
The companies that are ahead in this area no longer look only at certificates or inspection checklists. They increasingly treat explosion safety as part of integrated asset management. Not because legislation asks for more paperwork, but because downtime, liability and production loss are far more expensive than a proper verification of the real situation.
A 2012 installation may still function perfectly from a technical point of view.
But without current assessment, verification, inspection and control of changes, that is not proof that the installation is still demonstrably explosion-safe in 2026.
https://exquintia.com/
#ATEX #DSEAR #ExplosionSafety #ProcessSafety #IEC60079 #ENIEC60079 #HazardousAreas #AssetIntegrity #LifecycleSafety #Inspection #Maintenance #FoodIndustry #ChemicalIndustry #RiskManagement #Exquintia