The Pressure Equipment Directive and Innovation

Guy BAYLACTechnical Advisor of EPERC TP

guy.baylac@wanadoo.fr

European Commission/TAIEXPED Worshop in Romania

Bucharest – 27 February – 1 March 2007

2

Layout

• Introduction

1. The PED in the present context

2. The future of the PED

• Conclusion

3

Introduction

• The Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) was issued in May1997

• PED had a great impact with its large scope covering many equipments

• It was relatively well accepted from the beginning thanks to the Guidelines issued by the Working Group Pressure

• Time has arrived when it is necessary to raise the question: Is it necessary to revise this directive ?

4

Layout

• Introduction

1. The PED in the present context

2. The future of the PED

• Conclusion

5

The goals of industry

• Competitiveness

• Safety

• Innovation, key issue for EPERC

6

Methodology of the Directive 1

• Essential safety requirements– Design– Manufacturing– Materials– Specific requirements for steam generators and piping

• No prescribed values, except in Annex I, paragraph 7• The need for a hazard analysis

– Eliminate or reduce hazards– Apply appropriate protection against hazards which cannot

be eliminated– Inform users of residual hazards

7

Methodology of the Directive 2

• Classification of equipment in function of the hazard

• Requirements on qualification of personnel and procedures graduated in function of the hazard

• Conformity assessment procedures

• Notified bodies and User inspectorates

8

The system has worked 1

• Except some difficulties signaled for – The market surveillance– The acceptance of materials– The standards: the presumption of

conformity given to harmonized standards (Art 5) was not enough to give the necessary impulse to the development of certain standards (e.g. EN 13445)

9

The system has worked 2

• Some difficulties in the development of the research

• But this is not due to the PED– The goal-setting legislation facilitates

initiative– The terms used in the PED give a lot of

freedom (e.g. joining of components)

10

The new departure of standardization and

research

• This new departure should result from a greater involvement of the industry with incitative measures, such as:– Public helps to investments– Participation of investors

• EPERC is ready to help this movement

11

Layout

• Introduction

1. The PED in the present context

2. The future of the PED

• Conclusion

12

Cost variations

• Important cost variations can be noted in the different countries due to:– Different time-intervals in in-service

inspection– Acceptance of the concept of Risk-Based

inspection– Acceptance of alternative methods for the

requalification of equipment

13

Need for a goal-setting legislation

• EPERC is in favour of a European goal-setting legislation on in-service inspection– Fostering the use of Risk-Base Inspection– Allowing the use of alternative methods to the

requalification by hydrotest, as it is already the case in some countries

– These alternative methods using Fitnet for Service techniques associated to appropriate planning and innovative NDT methods

14

PED limits

• PED stops at putting in service or putting on the market

• It considers assemblies, but not assembly on site which is of the responsibility of Member States

• In-service inspection is of the responsibility of Member States

15

Layout

• Introduction

1. The PED in the present context

2. The future of the PED

• Conclusion

16

Conclusion

• The PED gives satisfaction as it is • The development of standardization and

research does not request a modification of the directive and can be obained by other means

• EPERC suggests that the preparation of a goal-setting legislation on in-service inspection is more urgent that the modification of the PED.