Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on transportable pressure equipment'
Date: 1997-07-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EC conformity marking, approximation of laws, free movement of goods, pressure equipment, safety standard













EUR-Lex - 51997AC0766 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997AC0766

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on transportable pressure equipment'  


Official Journal C 296 , 29/09/1997 P. 0006 





Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on transportable pressure equipment` () (97/C 296/02) On 14 February 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 75(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned 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 4 June 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Lerios.At its 347th plenary session (meeting of 10 July 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 71 votes to three with eight abstentions.1. Outline of the proposalThe proposal aims to ensure the safe transport of transportable pressure equipment and the free circulation of such equipment within the Community market.It sets out to achieve this by introducing new procedures for periodic inspection of all existing pressure equipment, as described in Annex V Part II, and procedures for assessing conformity with the modules described in Annex V Part I covering all new pressure equipment.2. General comments2.1. Although the Council has already ensured a high level of safety in the transport of dangerous goods by adopting Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road, ADR) and Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail, RID), there is no such guarantee for the free movement of this type of pressure equipment from country to country, including refilling and reuse, inasmuch as there are additional national requirements relating to the above.These restrictions would be eradicated if there were a harmonized system of approvals for such equipment at the time of periodic inspections in use and when subsequently attaching the appropriate approvals and marks issued by the notified inspection bodies which will then be recognized by all Member States.2.2. From this it is clear that, if the internal market in transportable pressure equipment is to be completed, action at Community level is required. The ESC therefore endorses the Council's proposal for a directive inasmuch as the proposed directive is the result of consultations held by the Commission with both Member State governments and European trade federations (gas industry, liquid-gas association, chemical industry, representative bodies of inspecting agencies and the European standardization body CEN).3. Specific comments3.1. The ESC feels that rewording certain articles of the Commission document would facilitate implementation of the directive:3.1.1. By removing the word 'refillable` from the second line of Article 2, gas cartridges, which are not refillable, will automatically be included in the directive, thereby ensuring their free circulation.3.1.2. Article 13 calls upon the Member States to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for them to comply with the directive before 30 June 1998 and to implement these provisions from 1 January 1999. The ESC feels that depending on the availability of the relevant standards and specifications, these deadlines may require review.3.2. The ESC feels it would be useful to include the following specific technical data either in this directive or in the ADR:a) procedures for filling liquid gas cylinders and liquefied gas tanks, recommended and checked by notified inspection bodies,b) operating specifications - construction - certification and marking of valves on the above-mentioned cylinders and tanks.3.3. Implementing this directive will bring about a reduction in costs, i.e. some economic benefit for the manufacturers of pressure equipment, because, in future, approval and marking will take place only in one Member State and the equipment will then circulate freely throughout the EU. It follows that, with competition, the price of such equipment will drop. The ESC hopes that the industry (equipment manufacturers, i.e. of cylinders, tanks and other components, and liquefied gas producers and distributors) will pass on the resulting economic benefit to consumers in the end price of its products.Brussels, 10 July 1997.The President of the Economic and Social CommitteeTom JENKINS() OJ C 95, 24. 3. 1997, p. 2.APPENDIX to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee The following amendment, which obtained more than one quarter of the votes cast, was rejected during the discussions:Insert two new points 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 '3.1.3. Add the following new recital: "Whereas the freedom of movement and use in the Member States of transportable pressure equipment manufactured in compliance with Directive 84/527/EEC must continue to be guaranteed;"3.1.4. Add the following new Article 4(3) to the proposal for a directive: "The free movement and use within the Community of transportable pressure equipment manufactured in compliance with the provisions of Directive 84/527/EEC and bearing the M mark will be guaranteed, and no additional marking will be required".`ReasonIn Europe generally - and in certain countries in particular - there are several million LPG cylinders manufactured in compliance with Directive 84/527/EEC. The suppliers - monitored by the competent national authorities - are responsible for the marking system and for inspection of their state of repair. Forcing such cylinders to comply with an additional marking procedure would entail disproportionate expense with no tangible benefit to the consumer.Result of the voteFor: 33, against: 44, abstentions: 8.