Pressure Equipment Directive

[ldj1]

The pressure equipment directive states "this Directive does not cover the assembly of pressure equipment on the site and under the responsibility of the user, as in the case of industrial installations"
What I wish to understand as an owner/operator of a chemical process plant in the European Union where I have employed an engineering design firm to design a piping installation, and then employ a contractor to fabricate/assemble the installation on site does the Pressure equipment directive apply or does the above extract from the directive exclude the PED from being applicable as the piping installation is effectively the "the assembly of pressure equipment on the site and under the responsibility of the user"
The PS.DN would be 2000 of this installation.

Thank you.

 

[ione]

You could find something useful in the attached paper. In particular check guidelines 3/1 and 3/2.

 

[crcenteno]

PED is intended to cover equipments or installations to be sold. If you fabricate something on your own and you are not selling it I believe this applies to you.

European Directives are focused to godos to be sold whithin the European Union.

 

[MortenA]

The quote is from the preamble (i think its called) paragraph 5.

Im no a subject expert but i use PED regularely.

If you look in the guidelines i think 3.2 will help a little. Guideline 3.8 then gives some more explanation as to the difference between components and pressure systems and assemblies and installations. Not knowing i think that this is legal stuff to make sure that a manufacture dosnt break some local regulation/law while referring to PED:

Question: Are joining operations on site covered by the PED?
Answer: For the joining on site of components or equipment, two cases have to be
considered:
1) Joining of component parts: joining of component parts to
comprise an item of pressure equipment is subject to the requirements of
the Directive. The manufacturer –even if he is the user- has the
responsibility that the resulting item of pressure equipment is in
compliance with the Directive.
2) Joining of items of pressure equipment.
The joining is not covered by the PED if it is carried out to constitute an
installation (1) under the responsibility of the user but remains covered by
national rules.
If the joining is carried out under the responsibility of a manufacturer to
constitute an assembly covered by the definition given in Article 1.2.1.5,
this assembly must fulfil the requirements of the Directive.

 

[DekDee]

ldj1,
I worked on the construction of a US$4 billion Nickel Refinery in New Caledonia (a French territory)and all our piping and vessels had to be in accordance with the PED.
An absolute nightmare to work with.
We had to fly in NoBos for inspections / audits at a huge cost - pretty sure they wouldn't have done that if it was not required.
Cheers,
DD

 

[DSB123]

What you need to remember about the UK PED regs is that the "Forum" was made up of insurance Companies who now act as NoBos so it was not in their interest to have equipment which would not need NoBo involvement as they would have been cutting their own throats, so to speak. They wanted everything pressurised to over 0.5Barg to fall under the UK regs - so much so that they changed the wording of the original EU Directive. The EU Directive was introduced in my view to stop "back street" fabricators making things (not to Codes) and selling them on to the Public. It was there to provide minimum safety to the Public hence the wording "manufactured and placed on the Market". So first the item needed to be manufactured and then placed on the European Market. The UK "Forum" being made up of all insurance Companies changed one word - the and became an or so the wording in the UK regs is "Manufactured or placed on the market". This essentially was a catch all situation and pressure equipment did not have to be placed on the market - as soon as they were manufactured they fell under the PED. This is wrong IMHO and was not the original intent of the EU PED. Pressurised items made for industrial installations are designed & fabricated to International Codes and hence have safety factors built-in to the Design and IMHO should not have to undergoe the rigors of meeting the PED. On the other hand Items bought in such as valves etc should meet the PED.

I beleive the Engineering Community is being slightly ripped off by the NoBo's !!!!

Just my two pence worth!!!

 

[MortenA]

@DekDee - since all contractors had to do this it was only a burden for the owner/client - it didnt skew competition (unless your bid department thought they could get away with something less of course - (irony on)but then again that _never_ happens (irony off) ).

Best regards, Morten

 

[DekDee]

Morten,
I was working for the owner / client.
We had 1500 welders on the project and every time we wanted to do a welder qualification test we had to have a NoBo attend.
We were working to ASME so normally the test would be witnessed by the contractors representative and by myself as the clients rep.
As per PED a NoBo had to attend - we were getting guys who knew nothing about welding but they gave us a nice stamp on the paperwork to go along with their hefty bill,
Cheers,
DD

 

[MortenA]

OK, sounded like you were a contractor ;-)

 

[EdStainless]

PED is only a restraint on trade and a means of profit for the EU based inspection firms.
It adds nothing to material requirements, nothing to joining requirements, and nothing to testing, other than paper and cost.
This is what happens when bureaucrats draft rules rather than the effected parties.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

 

[DSB123]

EdStainless,
I totally agree with you (see my post). It's a way of the Insurance Companies (i.e. NoBos) to rip off the operating Companies.