Keeping up the pressure

By now, anybody working regularly with pressure equipment is able, at the drop of a hard-hat, to offer chapter and verse on the implications of the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED).

But very few of us would risk claiming expertise in this area. Most people just need to understand the law's implications to their own circumstances.

This is usually easiest for the end user of vessels, steam generators or piping (the types of equipment covered). Basically, they just have to look for CE marking; if the mark is there, the equipment complies with the law. If the CE mark is not in evidence, life becomes a little more complicated. It may be that the equipment or assembly is designed for use below the specified pressure/volume thresholds, in which case there should be markings other than the CE mark.

For the manufacturer of pressure equipment, the situation is more complex. The manufacturer will normally be responsible for ensuring that equipment has been correctly tested and certified. But certification and marking is not only of concern to equipment manufacturers.

The Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999 documentation is lengthy and not designed for easy reading. Inevitably, very few people will have read and understood every word. Therefore, many people probably fail to realise their legal responsibilities.The user could be forgiven for assuming that the PED imposes requirements on equipment manufacturers, or their agents. It does, of course, but probably not in the way that the user might imagine.

Even a cursory read of the legislation reveals that it does not say, 'manufacturers must not...' or, 'suppliers shall not...'. The language used is, 'no person who is a responsible person shall place on the market or put into service...' equipment which does not comply with the legislation's various technical provisions.

If a manufacturer is established within the EU, then the 'responsible person' is the manufacturer itself. Failing that, it will be its representative. If, however, the manufacturer has neither a presence within the EC nor a representative here, the person responsible for ensuring compliance is 'the person who places the pressure equipment or assembly on the market or puts it into service.'

This has implications for two types of people. First, there is the importer of pressure equipment. Even though they may not be franchised or otherwise recognised as an official representative of their supplier, they are deemed responsible because they are placing the equipment on the market.

The second affected group - end users - may be less aware of their position. How, some may wonder, could end users be responsible for equipment compliance? The answer lies in the wording, 'or puts it into service...'

Not all pressure equipment installed in the UK will necessarily have been sold here, or even within the EC as a whole. In most cases, a user here will purchase equipment from a UK-based company or from other EC states. But some will be taking advantage of the economies of scale offered by centralised, global procurement, acquiring equipment through purchasing functions based overseas. Others will purchase directly from manufacturers in the Far East, the US or elsewhere.

In neither case has the equipment actually been placed on the market within the EC, so compliance responsibility falls upon whomever 'puts it into service.' Although the meaning has yet to be tried legally in a test case, it is unambiguous. If you source equipment from outside the EC and install and commission it - that is, you 'put it into service' - you are responsible for ensuring that it complies with the PED.

If such end users are only now realising their responsibilities, they may also wonder about the risks they run in not complying with the law. Failure to ensure PED compliance can result in a fine of up to £5000, a three-month prison sentence, or both.

Mark Niblett is the manager for field products for ABB Instrumentation.