Security Robots ATEX: Chemical and Refinery Use

Chemical and refinery sites are the toughest regulatory environment for mobile robotics. Anyone planning an autonomous patrol starts not with the data sheet but with the zone plan. This text describes what the ATEX directive requires, where standard robots are permitted and why hybrid perimeter deployment wins economically against the classic guard post.

Security Robots ATEX: What Directive 2014/34/EU Requires of the Device

ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU classifies equipment by group (I for mining, II for other industry) and category (1, 2, 3) depending on the type of protection. Zones 0, 1 and 2 apply to gases and vapours, zones 20, 21 and 22 to combustible dusts. A security robot on the outer perimeter of a chemical park typically meets Zone 2 or Zone 22, because the high-class zones sit at the plant core.

Conformity is not a label, it is a structural property. Every energy-carrying component needs a recognised type of protection: Ex d (flameproof enclosure), Ex e (increased safety), Ex i (intrinsic safety), Ex p (pressurised enclosure). That covers the drive, the battery, the radio module, the camera and the LiDAR sensor. Fully ATEX-certified mobile platforms are rare on the market and cost a multiple of a standard solution.

The honest consequence: real-world deployment runs predominantly in the adjacent non-Ex zone. The zone boundary is documented in the route plan and the robot respects it as a physical exclusion line. This architecture works because 80 to 90 percent of a chemical site is free of explosion protection requirements. [Source required]

Further reading: Perimeter protection in industrial parks.

Zone Classification: Deployment Limits by ATEX Category

Zone 0 and Zone 20 mark areas with permanent or long-term explosive atmosphere. Mobile robotics without Category 1 certification has no place here. Full stop.

Zone 1 and Zone 21 mark occasional occurrence during normal operation. Category 2 equipment is required. For mobile platforms this certification is hardly available in practice, because the combination of drive energy, radio module and sensor technology is difficult to build as Ex d compliant.

Zone 2 and Zone 22 describe areas where an explosive atmosphere only occurs in case of malfunction and for short periods. Category 3 equipment is permitted. This is the realistic deployment range for specialised platforms, provided a corresponding certification exists.

In addition: outside the Ex zone, no restriction from the ATEX directive applies. Standard robotics can be used, provided the other machine safety requirements are met. The zone plans under Betriebssicherheitsverordnung §6 are the binding basis of every route plan. Without a current zone plan there is no route release. Without route release there is no commissioning.

Hybrid Approach: Standard Robot on the Perimeter, Drone Over the Ex-Zone

The workable approach separates movement and sensing. The QR-2 for 24/7 outdoor perimeter patrols the outer plant fence and the transition areas. Its plant depth ends at the documented ATEX zone boundary. It does not drive in, it looks in.

The thermal camera detects heat signatures inside the Ex-zone from a distance of 80 metres [source required], without physical entry. Overheating pumps, hot spots at flanges and incipient fires are detected without the device itself being a possible ignition source. Acoustic detection registers pressure losses, pump anomalies and high-frequency leaks up to 60 metres range [source required]. Again, no ATEX relevance, because the sensor sits outside the zone.

For inspection flights over tank farms in case of suspected incident, the QR-3 with drone integration is deployed. The drone itself is not ATEX-certified but flies over the plant with sufficient safety distance and returns to the charging station outside the zone. The flight plan is subject to the same risk assessment as the ground robot.

This division of tasks costs less than a single ATEX-certified robot and, based on operational experience, covers 90 percent of monitoring cases. [Source required] The remaining ten percent (point-accurate gas measurement at critical flanges) remains the task of stationary Ex sensor technology.

EU Machinery Regulation 2023/1230 and EN ISO 13482 as Second Standard Layer

ATEX is not the only standard. The new EU Machinery Regulation 2023/1230 replaces Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC from January 2027 [source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1230/oj] and requires an extended risk assessment for autonomous systems. Anyone starting a robotics project in 2025 must already document under the new regulation. Otherwise the 2027 conformity assessment is worthless.

EN ISO 13482 originally standardises safety requirements for personal care robots, but is used in practice as a reference for mobile security robots with possible human contact. The requirements for emergency stop, speed limitation and collision detection are transferable in particular.

The risk assessment must explicitly cover interactions between robot, ATEX atmosphere and human maintenance activities. Radio modules (5G, LTE-M, WLAN) are often the critical ignition source. The transmit power at the boundary of an Ex-zone must be assessed separately. This applies in particular to short-term power peaks during connection setup or handover. Quarero documents the risk assessment together with the operator and hands over a tailored route release as part of the handover protocol.

TCO Comparison: Guard Post in Chemical Parks Against Autonomous Patrol

A 24/7 staffed guard post in the chemical park environment costs between EUR 18,000 and 26,000 per month according to BDSW industry data. This includes allowances for the hazardous goods environment, shift bonuses and holiday cover. The QR-2 in the RaaS model is at EUR 3,500 per month, without investment, with 48-hour delivery and a 24-month minimum term.

If two guard posts per shift are replaced by one robot plus a reduced intervention force, costs drop by 60 to 70 percent. [Source required] The calculation is conservative: it assumes a human escalation level and not a complete personnel replacement.

Unlike personnel, the robot works without habituation effects. Routine fatigue, drop in attention during the night shift and waiting areas are eliminated. The detection level between 02:00 and 04:00 stays identical to daytime operation. That is the hardest advantage over a human patrol.

Added to this is the reduction of personnel exposure to hazardous substances. Anyone positioning a guard post near tank farms or loading stations exposes them permanently to residual risks. This aspect is BG-RCI relevant and influences insurance premiums. Detailed calculation in the TCO comparison with classic guard service.

Model question: Robotics-as-a-Service without investment.

KRITIS Sector Chemicals: Dual Obligations from KRITIS Umbrella Act and ATEX

Chemical plants from the BSI thresholds of the KritisV are subject simultaneously to the Betriebssicherheitsverordnung and to critical infrastructure regulation. The KRITIS-Dachgesetz demands physical resilience, ATEX demands freedom from ignition sources. The security architecture must satisfy both requirements in sync, not in sequence.

The NIS-2 directive additionally requires cyber resilience of the robotics in use. Radio links, update paths and access rights are part of the information security management system. A robot updated by WLAN is a NIS-2 relevant asset and belongs in the asset inventory.

Board liability applies in case of failures on either level. Documented robotics integration is a verifiable resilience contribution. It reduces liability risk, provided risk assessment, conformity assessment and operating instructions are in place. Background under NIS-2 board liability.

The BBK registration as KRITIS operator must reflect the automated protection systems in use. Anyone not reporting robotics does not have it in regulatory terms. Overview in the directory of KRITIS sectors at a glance.

Implementation: From Zone Plan to First Patrol in 14 Days

Day 1 to 3: handover of the current zone plan under BetrSichV, joint walkthrough of the planned patrol route with the HSE manager and head of plant security. Clarification of transition areas where the zone classification changes.

Day 4 to 7: risk assessment under Machinery Regulation 2023/1230, definition of exclusion zones in the route plan, definition of emergency shutdown points. Definition of radio link parameters including maximum transmit power at the boundary to the Ex-zone.

Day 8 to 10: commissioning of the QR-2, calibration of the thermal camera to the expected background signatures of the plant. Hot air discharges from cooling towers, sun-heated tank walls and heated pipelines must be learned as normal state. Otherwise the system produces unusable false alarm rates.

Day 11 to 14: training of route variants for day and night operation, integration into the control room, build-up of the escalation matrix with the local guard service and the plant fire brigade. From day 15 the productive 24/7 patrol runs. HSE and plant security receive a weekly evaluation report.

Limits of Robot Deployment in the ATEX Environment

No standard robot replaces an Ex-certified gas measurement station. Point measurement at critical flanges remains the task of stationary sensor technology with fixed wiring and regular calibration. The robot complements, it does not replace.

The robot is no substitute for the fire brigade. Fire fighting in the Ex-zone remains the task of the plant fire brigade with its own equipment. In case of full alarm the robot must retreat from the hazard zone, not drive into it. Self-protection takes priority over data capture, because a lost robot in the debris field of an explosion becomes a secondary hazard source.

Weather extremes reduce sensor performance. Heavy precipitation dampens thermal signals, storms above 80 km/h overlay acoustic signatures, fog reduces optical range. Redundancy through stationary cameras at fixed mast positions remains necessary. Robotics is one layer, not the only layer.

Acceptance in the works council requires clear demarcation: no personal surveillance, only perimeter and anomaly detection. The data protection impact assessment documents this and is agreed with the works council before commissioning. Without this agreement the project fails in the first quarter. The reason is internal resistance, not technology.

Anyone wanting to discuss operational implementation with concrete zone boundaries and sensor placement starts with the deployment assessment for the QR-2. The route release emerges from dialogue between HSE, plant security and Quarero, not from a data sheet.