SEP - Dossier requirements - what is expected to be included in handover file - EU pipers

[mrtangent2]

Dear Pipers..

Is their a list to what is expected as "common" practice for a SEP -Piping system under PED for a handover package from a contractor.

I'm finding a variety of detail being provided.. and struggling to get a recommendation..

is there any decent info or background references one could locate..

 

[XL83NL]

The only thing that’s required for SEP, or Sound Engineering Practice, is that what’s been outlined in PED guideline I-01:

What is to be understood by "sound engineering practice"?

Sound engineering practice” means, without prejudice to Article 5, paragraph 1, that such pressure equipment is designed taking into account all relevant factors influencing its safety. Furthermore, such equipment is manufactured, verified and delivered with instructions for use in order to ensure its safety during its intended life, when used in foreseeable or reasonably foreseeable conditions. The manufacturer is responsible for the application of sound engineering practice.

In short: a manual.

Please bear in mind that individual Member States may, by law, require their own additional set of requirements for SEP. I’ve no ever heard of such though.
Furthermore guideline I-09 may be useful, though it’s less binding and more guiding.

If you’d ask me what I require our contractors to supply us for SEP, I’d provide a different approach. The PED lacks to see some potential risks for small bore piping, something common in my industry. I require therefore the same docs as for cat I or II. The added cost is little but the potential for errors when you differentiate it he doc requirements on PED category is significant.
We typically apply B31.3 piping for design, as EN 13480 is not very practical. There’s currently a ballot in the B31.3 piping code to better guide piping designers in B31.3 when needing to comply with PED under the Code.


Huub
- You never get what you expect, you only get what you inspect.

 

[Rputvin]

I have submitted a "certification" that explains SEP and why the letter was not a certificate of conformity to PED with a CE mark, after repeated insistence that we provide CE/PED paperwork.

 

[XL83NL]

You mean you issued some sort of certificate of ‘compliance/conformance’ to SEP explaining the pressure equipment falls under PED, but is categorised art 4.3 aka SEP? That’s a good idea, as it shows you’ve thought about the PED and found you’re outside the scope of Annex I.
Happens more often and definitely something I’d recommend. Good addition!

Huub
- You never get what you expect, you only get what you inspect.

 

[Rputvin]

Essentially, yes. It was a number of years ago so I might be a bit fuzzy on the details, but we were submitting an ASME design that was a CRN category H fitting and fell under SEP for PED. I wrote up a document that was for all intents and purposes a self-certification type 'certificate of conformity', but not titled as such. Rather than a standard one liner full of compliance verbiage it was a couple of paragraphs to succinctly explain why there was no CE mark, what code definitions were being used to justify my position, reference to the design package conforming to ASME BPVC VIII, etc. The intent was to get whoever was asking for items I couldn't provide up to speed on the how and why of the code requirements and what measures were taken to meet SEP.