No C 328/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 86
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the harmonization of the laws of the
Member States relating to simple pressure vessels (*)
(86/C/328/09)
On 20 March 1986, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the
abovementioned proposal.
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 September 1986 in the light
of the report by Mr Flum.
At its 239th plenary session (meeting of 17 September 1986) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 100 votes in favour, with seven abstentions:
The Committee welcomes the proposal for a Directive,
subject to the following observations:
1. Introduction
1.1. On 25 April 1985 (2) the Committee approved
in general terms the new approach to technical harmon-
ization of standardization in the hope that this would
facilitate further progress towards the removal of bar-
riers to trade arising from national laws and technical
standards. One priority objective is to make a useful
contribution to the creation of a genuine internal mar-
ket by reducing the number of individual national rules
and regulations applying to given groups of products.
The slow progress so far towards this goal must be
criticized.
1.2. The simple pressure vessels proposal is the first
to be based on the Council resolution of 7 May 1985,
which laid down the basic principles of the new
approach. The proposal, therefore, deserves particular
attention.
1.2.1. This attempt to harmonize the laws of the
Member States relating to simple pressure vessels is,
therefore, a model for future legislation. A specific aim
of the Council resolution of 7 May 1985 was to estab-
lish a clear procedure for the harmonization of safety
objectives. Legal certainty and verifiability are
extremely desirable.
1.3. This first proposal to harmonize standardization
in a specific field is not only a significant attempt to
achieve free movement within the EEC internal market,
it also has relevance for proposals in other technical
fields. Particular attention should be paid to the safety
of users and consumers and the avoidance of barriers
to technological development.
1.3.1. Technology is a dynamic component of social
policy. Rules governing safety technology have an
important role to play in balancing economic and social
interests (including health protection). Participation of
the social groups is therefore called for.
1.3.2. If the interests of suppliers and users of prod-
ucts are to be balanced, technical rules will need to be
adapted and harmonized within the Community. In this
way it will be possible to eliminate technical barriers
and guarantee the requisite level of safety.
1.3.3. A prerequisite for the establishment of the new
method at EEC level is a distinction between functional
'safety requirements' and 'specifications for the manu-
facture of products'.
The Committee assumes that this distinction will enable
the detailed discussion by experts which was a feature
of the 'old method' to take place in a forum other than
the Council, i.e. at CEN or CENELEC. This will leave
the Council free to concern itself with the far more
important question of creating a free market whilst
guaranteeing the safety of all citizens.
1.3.4. It is not always easy to draw a clear dividing
line between safety requirements and product specifi-
cations. The checks required thus take on considerable
importance. Effective participation by manufacturers,
authorities, consumers and workers is, therefore,
essential.
1.3.5. Experience over several decades has shown
that it is extremely difficult to harmonize physical
dimensions and weights in Europe. The problems
associated with applying such multi-disciplinary con-
cepts as product safety to standardization are even
greater, necessitating a very careful approach in work-
ing procedures.
(!) OJ No C 89, 15. 6. 1986, p. 2.
(2) OJ No C 169, 8. 7. 1985, p. 15.
1.3.6. The Committee feels that it is particularly
important that the scope of the directive be defined
with sufficient precision. What must be avoided is a
22. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 328/21
situation where individual products are regulated by a
mass of directives. This would defeat the whole purpose
of the new approach.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, efforts must be made
to achieve uniform Community rules as soon as pos-
sible, as this is one of the preconditions for free compe-
tition in a single European market.
2. General comments
2.1. The title of the directive
The stated aim of the directive is to harmonize the
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-
ive action applicable to simple pressure vessels. It is
extremely doubtful whether there are sufficiently de-
tailed rules with force of law in certain Community
countries. Standards drawn up by organizations estab-
lished under private law generally go no further than
stipulating the technical conditions for the manufacture
of products. There is no responsibility for the establish-
ment of safety and health objectives. This is a matter for
government action in consultation with manufacturers,
workers and consumers.
2.2. Article 1
The field of application specified is unsatisfactory.
There is no comprehensive definition of 'essential safety
requirements'. A distinction needs to be made between
simple and complex (or more hazardous) pressure ves-
sels; the extent to which the consumer is affected in the
event of damage occurring also needs to be defined.
And finally, a clear distinction must be made between
the establishment of safety objectives and the various
technical options for achieving them.
The Section feels that the principle of laying down
safety requirements, the non-observance of which
would give rise to sanctions, requires that the directive's
scope be clearly defined. In this way the Commission
will also prevent the procedure for simple pressure
vessels from being slowed down as a result of the more
stringent checks applicable to complex pressure vessels.
The list of pressure vessel materials should be dispensed
with, bringing the following advantages:
(a) Certain problems with adaptation to technological
progress will be avoided. As it would hardly be
reasonable to submit a decision to the Council every
time the scope of the directive has to be extended
to cover newly developed materials, the Committee
suggests that the possibility be studied of authoriz-
ing the Commission to lay down the materials to
be used in pressure vessels without consulting the
Council.
(b) Certain distortions of competition as between 'har-
monized' and 'non-harmonized' pressure vessels
will be avoided. In order to preclude such distortions
of competition on the market the Committee urges
that new proposals on complex pressure vessels
with different risk categories be submitted at an
early date in order to ensure that the whole field of
pressure vessels is covered with maximum clarity.
2.3. If, as stated in the proposal for a directive,
mandatory rules do not lead to levels of safety differing
from one Member State to another, but do, because of
their diversity, impede intra-Community trade, then the
Committee wonders whether transitional measures are
in fact necessary.
2.3.1. The Committee believes there is a risk that
discrimination based on standards will in fact continue
to be possible during the transitional period, for
example in the area regulated by the low-voltage Direc-
tive. At the same time there would be no incentive for
countries with existing standards to develop European
standards. In the specific case of pressure vessels some
Member States have voluntary standards and others
legally binding technical regulations. Difficulties can be
foreseen for certain Member States unless there is a
clear legal classification of the rules. Otherwise, when
the directive entered into force, these Member States
would find themselves in a 'vacuum' until the European
standards were adopted. In such a situation the Com-
mission would have to introduce new transitional
arrangements for those Member States, to prevent dis-
crimination between countries with and without
standards.
2.3.2. The Committee therefore proposes that the
transitional period be dispensed with and every effort be
made to promote the early establishment of European
standards. The Committee calls on the Commission to
submit a timetable drawn up in consultation with CEN/
CENELEC as provided for in the Council resolution of
7 May 1985 so that the parties concerned will know
when the European standards will be entering into
force.
2.4. In its opinion on the new approach, adopted on
25 April 1985, the Committee pointed out that the new
approach made it necessary for the Council to adopt
the Directive on product liability (Directive 85/374/
EEC). The Committee calls on the Commission to
study the consequences of the present draft directive for
consumers and manufacturers particularly in conjunc-
tion with Article 7 (d) of the product-liability Directive,
which gives no clear ruling on liability in the event of
rules laid down by public authorities being unsound.
2.5. The directive should cover both essential safety
requirements and the inspection of vessels. But the
No C 328/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 86
essential safety requirements contained in the draft
directive so far take account only of the manufacture
of pressure vessels; the safety aspects of the placing in
service of pressure vessels, their installation, use and
maintenance are not adequately dealt with (point 4,
Annex I) and should, the Committee feels, be more
precisely defined. The Committee fears that the effect
might otherwise be to limit the roles of the inspectorates
and the safety committees. The Committee also con-
siders that it would not be a good idea to deal with
this problem in a separate directive. This would not set
a good example for future Directives.
3. Specific comments
3.1. Articles 1 and 3
In Articles 1 and 3 limits are set for pressure potential
(20 and 10 000 bar/litres) and for operating tempera-
tures.
— The energy limits of 10 000 bar/litres and 20 bar/
litres seem too high; they do not form part of an
overall safety system. There are different attitudes
to pressure potential in the various Member States
and different inspection requirements.
— The Committee recommends that the Commission
draw up a practical list of operating data and
spheres of use for simple pressure vessels. The safety
concept should be developed from this.
Account should be taken of, inter alia, the following
points:
— maximum and minimum operating temperatures,
— pressure limits,
— protection against fragments,
— quality assurance throughout a vessel's operating
life, with particular reference to corrosion.
Done at Brussels, 17 September 1986.
3.2. Article 6
This Article lays down that both the Member States and
the Commission may refer questions of interpretation to
the Standing Committee (set up pursuant to Directive
83/189/EEC). The Committee has to deliver its opinion
without delay.
The Committee feels that the Standing Committee
should not be consulted on questions of standardization
until it has the basic guidelines for safety requirements
applicable to simple pressure vessels that are to be
drawn up by the Commission and the Council. It must
also be ensured that these safety requirements cannot
be laid down by bodies established under private law.
3.3. Articles 8, 10 and 11
With regard to EEC type examination, it is not clear
how the inspection body should be equipped and organ-
ized; the inspection criteria are also unclear. There must
be overall coordination of the certification system, the
safety limits for pressure and the type of tests.
3.4. Articles 12 to 16
Articles 12 to 16 deal with safety aspects and the EEC
mark. In this connection the Committee points out that
operating safety with pressure vessels is achieved by
means of a balanced quality system in planning, manu-
facture, operation and inspection. The EEC mark pro-
vides a guarantee of safety only if such a quality system
is mandatory and is closely monitored. The Committee
asks the Commission to consider these points carefully.
3.5. The Annex
The Committee feels that the Commission must have
the power to adapt the Annex to technical progress
(e.g. as regards pressure vessel materials) without the
Council having to initiate a formal amendment
procedure.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Gerd MUHR
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy