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