Pressure equipment: when users become responsible for PED compliance

The fact is that, despite all the words expended in a plethora of press articles, conferences, courses and other media, there are still very few of us who would risk claiming expertise in this area. To be fair, most people do not need to be experts on every aspect of the legislation. Rather, each of us needs to understand the implications of the not-so-new law as it applies to our own circumstances.

This is usually easiest for the end user of vessels, steam generators or piping (the types of equipment covered). To be over-simplistic, 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; then, consideration has to be given to the nature of the equipment and application. It may be that the equipment or assembly is designed for use below the specified pressure/volume thresholds; then, there should be other markings - but not the CE mark. There may be other reasons, though, to which we shall return.

For the manufacturer of pressure equipment, the situation is massively more complex. It will normally be the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that equipment has been correctly tested and certified. For the company with ranges so comprehensive that they run, in effect, to several thousand discrete products, certification represents neither a quick nor an easy process. In addition, certification is not noticeably cheap. Certification and marking, however, is of concern only to equipment manufacturers - or, is it?

The Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999 is a lengthy document, not designed for easy reading - the opening "Interpretations" section runs to almost 1,500 words, just to define the terms being used. The DTI does offer useful guidance notes, but even these extend to 52 pages. The inevitable consequence is that very few people will have read and understood every word. Therein lies the danger: there are probably still a great many people who 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 - and the requirements are not confined to the companies supplying equipment.

Even a cursory read of the legislation reveals that it does not say, "manufacturers must not..." or, "suppliers shall not..." What it does say, repeatedly, is more wide-ranging and has serious implications for users. 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. So, who is a "responsible person" and just what does this mean?

If a manufacturer is established within the European Community, then the "responsible person" is the manufacturer itself; failing that, it will be its representative (if established within the EC). If, however, the manufacturer has neither a presence within the EC nor a representative here, the legislation is quite clear. In such cases, 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 serious implications for two types of people.

Firstly, there is the importer of pressure equipment who is not the manufacturer’s official representative. They are responsible for ensuring legislative compliance, if the manufacturer is not established or represented within the EC, because they are placing the equipment on the market. So, although a distributor or wholesaler importing from outside the EC may not be franchised or otherwise recognised as an official representative of their supplier, they will still be responsible for the equipment’s PED compliance.

Any distributors who had not previously realised this will now face difficulties, because the two-year transition period has expired and their equipment should now all comply. Only a very few, however - if any - will be in this position.

There may be less awareness of their position, though, among the second affected group: end users. 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, increasingly commonly, from other EC states. For a significant minority, this will not be the case. 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 USA or elsewhere in order to ‘cut out the middle-man’ for shorter lead times or lower prices (although the alleged benefits are rarely what they first may seem).

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, the user, 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 Pressure Equipment Directive.

It may be that the manufacturer, expecting the equipment to be used within the European Economic Area, has already ensured compliance. If, though, no CE marking appears, then the user has to assume the role normally taken by the manufacturer and carry out the certification process.

For exempt equipment (certain offshore, marine and vehicle-mounted equipment etc.), the user has little to worry about. Otherwise, the user has to begin the possibly lengthy and costly process of assessing whether equipment is covered by the PED, into which of five ‘conformity assessment categories’ it falls, which ‘conformity assessment module’ is most suitable...

This, though, is not the place for a detailed description of how certification of PED compliance is achieved. For most users of pressure equipment, this should be a topic of only academic interest. Suffice it to say, however, that for some users, this is a subject with which they should already be intimately familiar. If such end users are only now realising their responsibilities, they may also be wondering about the risks they run in not complying with the law. Setting aside, briefly, what should be the main motivational factor - workplace safety - the Pressure Equipment Regulations, 1999, are admirably clear about what is at stake. Failure to obey the law and ensure PED compliance can result in a fine of up to £5,000, a three-month prison sentence or both.

Finally, anyone suspecting that the thorny subject of PED compliance is their responsibility, but who hesitates to act, thinking that, "The company can afford £5,000," should remember one important point. Companies can not be sent to prison; individuals can - and are, every working day.