EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/68

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on transportable pressure equipment’

COM(2009) 482 final — 2009/0131 (COD)

(2010/C 347/10)

Rapporteur: Mr PEZZINI

On 29 September 2009 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on transportable pressure equipment

COM(2009) 482 final – 2009/0131 (COD).

The Section for the Internal Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 1 February 2010.

At its 460th plenary session, held on 17-18 February 2010 (meeting of 17 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 190 votes, nem. con. with two abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 The EESC appreciates the Commission's work on bringing European legislation on transportable pressure equipment into line with international developments and recent measures, to strengthen the internal market and cut red tape.

1.2 The Commission proposal is extremely important as it extends the scope of the ADR, RID and ADN international agreements, which had already been incorporated by Directive 2008/68/EC, to national transport.

1.3 In addition, the EESC believes that adopting the Directive will convert the recommendation made by the Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) into a legislative act for the Member States, with clear benefits for the internal market.

1.4 The EESC strongly recommends that all the procedures set out focus constantly, as their primary objective, on operators’ and public safety during the production, transport, sale and recycling of equipment.

1.5 The EESC stresses that safety is the key factor both in this Commission proposal and in applying Directive 2008/68/EC.

1.6 The EESC stresses the need for training, which is necessary to obtain staff skilled and accredited in risk management; it proposes that the liability of the various parties be clearly defined with penalties laid down for failure to meet safety standards, and compensation that operators can claim from risk insurance, where necessary.

1.7 The EESC welcomes the means chosen by the Commission to give coherent legislative structure to the proposal, which provides for:

— consolidation of technical rules in a single text,

— incorporation of legislative measures adopted to reinforce the internal market, giving notified bodies a better-defined role,

— extension of EU legislation to other, non-EU states,

— tighter control on the market.

1.8 The EESC feels that certain articles of the proposal could be better developed, to make their transposal by the Member States more effective and avoid any divergent interpretations.

1.9 The EESC feels that closer relations should be forged with third countries, particularly those sharing a border with the EU and Community ‘enclaves’, in order to conclude agreements with the countries whose pressure equipment passes through the EU, to ensure that it complies with the requirements laid down in the directive.

1.10 The EESC firmly believes that adopting specific rules on traceability during monitoring, handling and control of transportable pressure equipment would help achieve a better culture of responsibility and more clarity in any disputes which may arise in respect of damage to operators, persons or goods. Notified bodies, inter alia in circumstances where accidents have taken place, should be accountable to operators and third parties for investigating and analysing what has happened.

1.11 The EESC recommends drawing up new guidelines, on the basis of the two new texts, to update those originally set out in Directive 1999/36/EC, which must be repealed.

2. Background

2.1 The EESC firmly believes that increasing safety of transportable pressure equipment in inland carriage of dangerous goods and securing the free movement thereof within the Community is essential for full implementation of the European Single Market and protection of industry, international trade, the consumer, the environment and the general public.

2.2 The EESC fully agrees on the need for:

— conformity assessment and certification of new transportable pressure equipment;

— periodic inspections, reassessment of conformity;

— existing transportable pressure equipment to be subject to periodic inspections;

— notified bodies to affix conformity markings to equipment as evidence of certification;

— reinforced market surveillance systems, as the EESC called for in its Opinion (1) on the new legislative framework defined in Regulation 765/2008/EC and Decision 768/2008/EC.

2.3 The UN regularly makes specific (although not legally binding) recommendations on new ISO standards, which are included in the ‘Orange Book’, ensuring international recognition of voluntary ISO standards in the sector, to take account of technical progress, new materials and transport constraints, in order to ensure protection of people, goods and the environment.

2.4 The UN Committee of Experts recently decided to include reference to numerous ISO standards in a special chapter, making UN markings legally binding.

2.5 The Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) set out its policy in:

— the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) (2);

— the Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID) (3), which were incorporated into Directives 94/55/EC and 96/49/EC;

— the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterways (ADN) (4).

2.6 Under these agreements, on 18 August 2009 the UNECE set in motion the 16th revision of the Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.

2.7 The revision includes:

— classification and definition of individual classes;

— listing of the principal dangerous goods;

— general packing requirements;

— testing procedures;

— marking, labelling, testing and approval of packages and portable tanks;

— consignment procedures.

2.8 The revision is intended to bring about simplified transport, handling and control procedures, a reduction in formalities and, in general, reduced barriers to international transport of goods categorised as ‘dangerous’, while constantly paying heed to the safety systems and rules for operators and the public.

2.9 On 24 September 2008 the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2008/68/EC on the inland transport of dangerous goods, which the EESC welcomed (5). The Directive repealed Directives 94/55/EC, 96/49/EC, 96/35/EC and 2000/18/EC (6).

2.10 With Directive 2008/68/EC it was decided to simplify the legislative framework by means of a ‘single legislative act (all three transport modes … covered by one legal act only), … whereby references to international treaties and agreements on the transport of dangerous goods would be included in the appendices to the directive only’ (5).

2.11 As well as by Directive 2008/68/EC, which incorporated the ADR, the RID and the ADN (7), the matter is currently addressed at European level by Directive 1999/36/EC on transportable pressure equipment, on which the EESC has commented (8), and by ‘new approach’ legislation which has been amended several times (9) to bring it into line with technological progress.

2.12 It is important to meet standardisation needs in the area of pressure equipment: standardisation which supports and supplements legislation has become essential to secure a policy of quality and safety. Accessories must also be catered for, as per the ADR, the RID and the ADN.

2.13 On 9 September 2005, the Commission published a report on the application by the Member States of Council Directive 99/36/EC (10), which noted that ‘… a majority of Member States do not permit approved bodies to carry out conformity assessments for placing new transportable pressure equipment on the national market’ (not taking up the option provided in Article 4). It should be pointed out that use of approved bodies is optional, while it is mandatory to use notified bodies.

2.14 Moreover, the Commission itself had put back the date of entry into force of Directive 1999/36/EC to 1 July 2005 for pressure drums, bundles of cylinders and tanks, considering that ‘there are no detailed technical specifications and adequate references to the relevant European standards have not been added to the Annexes to Council Directive 94/55/EC … with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road, … and to Council Directive 96/49/EC … on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail’ (11), as per the EESC's Opinion on the carriage of dangerous goods.

2.15 Indeed, the implementation of Directive 1999/36/EC gave rise to numerous concerns among manufacturers, bodies responsible for product conformity assessment, users, professional bodies and standardisation committees, responsible for drawing up the essential requirements.

2.16 The EESC reiterates its previous comments on the subject, to the effect that ‘one cannot conceive of ensuring the best possible safety conditions for the inland transport of dangerous goods unless all types of inland transport (road, rail and inland waterway) are covered by common, EU wide legislation’ (12), in line with international rules.

3. The Commission proposal

3.1 The proposal, which should extend to the European Economic Area (EEA), should meet the following four main objectives:

— repeal Directive 1999/36/EC and Directives 76/767/EEC, 84/525/EEC, 84/526/EEC and 84/527/EEC on pressure cylinders;

— simplify the rules wherever possible, optimising them and bringing them into line with European and international rules currently in force;

— update legislation in order to ensure free movement and use of transportable pressure equipment, as regards the marketing of products on the internal market, with reference to Regulation No 765/2008/EC and Decision No 768/2008/EC;

— remove areas of conflict between rules on transportable pressure equipment (Directive 1999/36/EC) and international legislation on the carriage of dangerous goods, simplifying existing provisions, particularly with regard to conformity assessment procedures.

3.2 In the interests of transport safety and the free movement of transportable pressure equipment, the proposal defines the precise obligations of the various economic operators and operators responsible for day-to-day maintenance of the equipment, including owners and operators of transportable pressure equipment, clearly and transparently setting out their responsibilities.

3.3 The proposal sets out requirements and responsibilities for the authorities entrusted with the assessment, notification and monitoring of notified and inspection bodies, as well as providing for mutual recognition of notified bodies.

3.4 The Commission reserves the right to bring the Annexes into line with scientific and technological progress, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny included in the comitology system (13).

4. General comments

The EESC supports the proposal’s objectives relating to safety, obligations and responsibilities of operators and public authorities, clearly-defined procedures and checks, and requirements for the placing on the market, making available and use of transportable pressure equipment, under the common framework for the marketing of products defined by Decision 768/2008/EC and the market surveillance system defined by Regulation 765/2008/EC.

4.1.1 The EESC believes that operators play a key role in all the procedures concerning transportable pressure equipment (requests for reassessment of conformity, production, transport, technical maintenance and recycling), and therefore calls for the Directive's implementing measures to cater for all these delicate tasks. Appropriate, regular training should be required for staff, aimed at ensuring prudent risk management. It could be useful to provide for risk insurance for the operators concerned.

4.2 The EESC has firmly stressed that ‘the free movement of goods is an essential driver for competitiveness and the economic and social development of the European single market and that reinforcement and updating of the requirements for the marketing of safe, high-quality products are key factors for consumers, businesses and European citizens (14).’

4.3 The EESC believes it is appropriate for the new legislation to be linked to international rules, with the possibility of including references to relevant international conventions and agreements, not least in order to achieve the stated goal of simplifying technical provisions and standards (15).

4.4 While the EESC takes note of the Commission's ‘intensive consultations with the Member States and other interested parties’, it would have preferred the new Directive to have been subject to an impact assessment, not least given the complexity of the provisions and technical specifications to be respected.

4.5 It is concerned at the prospect of the Directive's provisions not being applied to equipment used solely to transport dangerous goods between the EEA and third countries. Moreover, the EESC feels that closer relations should be forged with third countries, particularly those sharing a border with the EU and Community ‘enclaves’.

4.6 The EESC believes it is essential for specific provisions to be adopted on the traceability of transportable pressure equipment, which would make it easier to determine responsibility. The recent tragic incident when a tank exploded at Viareggio station has shown that there are clear limits to the possibilities of determining responsibility.

4.7 The EESC also wonders why no penalties are established for breach of the obligations laid down in the Directive, particularly in the area of safety, especially given the need to ensure operators’ and the public's safety.

4.8 As regards use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, included in the comitology system, the EESC has stressed the importance of ‘comitology procedures being as transparent as possible and more accessible to people living in the EU, especially those affected by these acts’, and highlighted ‘the need to fully comply with Article 8(a) of the Lisbon Treaty, which stipulates that decisions are to be taken as close as possible to the people, while information must be fully accessible to the public and civil society’ (16).

5. Specific comments

5.1 Article 2(14): the EESC recommends that the proposal make it clearer that the distinction ‘whether in return for payment or free of charge’ refers to particular cases which do not fall within the remit of notified bodies.

5.2 Article 6(6): the EESC feels it would be appropriate to state to whom the documentation should be given, should the importer cease operating, for the remaining years of the specified 20-year period. Since the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC provide for this scenario (point 1.8.7.1.6), it would be appropriate for the proposal to include an explicit reference.

5.3 Article 18(5): the EESC feels that, whereas there is a need for confidentiality as regards sensitive information, the measures need to be made public to avoid errors and omissions.

5.4 Article 29: the EESC believes it would be useful to specify more clearly the obligations, tasks and responsibilities of notified bodies, to ensure uniform, rigorous procedures in the delicate sector of transportable pressure equipment.

5.5 The EESC believes that it would be appropriate for the Directive to specify more clearly whose responsibility it is in the Member States to assess the efficiency of equipment and devices and whether they are obsolete, particularly in order to avoid people being hurt. This information is already included in Directive 2008/68/EC, but it would be useful for this proposal to make it clear as well.

5.6 The EESC stresses that, in addition to pressure equipment, there is equipment which becomes ‘pressurised’ after certain actions. This equipment should also be catered for. Moreover, safety rules should be defined for medium- (see Directive 2008/68/EC) and long-term storage.

5.7 The EESC believes that provision could be made for settlement of any disputes (in court, arbitration etc.) which may arise between owners, importers, representatives and operators.

5.8 Lastly, the EESC recommends drawing up joint guidelines to provide clarification of both the new Directive and Directive 2008/68/EC, along the lines of those issued for Directive 1999/36/EC, which is to be repealed.

Brussels, 17 February 2010 The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Mario SEPI

(1) OJ C 120, 16.5.2008, p. 1.

(2) Signed on 30 September 1957 in Geneva. As at 31.3.2009, 45 countries had ratified the ADR: Albania, Germany, Andorra, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Macedonia, Russian Federation, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Morocco, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Romania, United Kingdom, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine.

(3) The RID Regulations are set out in Appendix C to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF), adopted on 3 June 1999 in Vilnius.

(4) European Agreement signed on 26 May 2000 in Geneva and subsequently amended.

(5) OJ C 256, 27.10.2007, p. 44.

(6) Directive 2000/18/EC (OJ L 118, 19.5.2000, pp. 41-43).

(7) See footnotes 2, 3 and 4.

(8) The EESC expressed its views on this matter on 10.7.1997 (OJ C 296, 29.9.1997, p. 6).

(9) By Commission Directive 2001/2/EC of 4 January 2001 (OJ L 5, 10.1.2001, p. 4) and Commission Directive 2002/50/EC of 6 June 2002 (OJ L 149, 7.6.2002, p. 28).

(10) COM(2005) 415 final of 9.9.2005.

(11) Decision 2003/525/EC (OJ L 183, 22.7.2003, p. 45).

(12) See footnote 7.

(13) Decision 1999/468/EC (OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23).

(14) OJ C 120, 16.5.2008, p. 1.

(15) N.B. The US does not accept UN-marked cylinders but only those type-approved by their own body, DOT.

(16) OJ C 224, 30.8.2008, p. 35.