List of Questions Version 88 - Dated - 2015!03!11

List of questions on PED
Guidelines on PED
NOTE : Some guideline numbers are not used for historical reasons (drafts which have been withdrawn).
The mention " Acceptance by WGP pending" means that the guideline is not adopted yet by the WORKING
GROUP PRESSURE/
This file contains only information related to PED Guidelines for directive 97/23/EC.
These Guidelines will be updated to the aligned PED Directive 2014/68EU. The new guidelines will be made
available gradually on CIRCABC and the PED website.
1 Scope and exclusions
Guideline 1/1: Are portable fire extinguishers within the scope of the Pressure Equipment Directive or
are they covered by the exclusion of article 1.3.19 for equipment covered by the ADR ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 52, ORGALIME 47, redrafted by UK, accepted by WPG on 1998.09.17
Accepted by WGP on 1999.01.28
Proposed amendment by Germany, Sept. 2009. No change (WPG 01 October 2009)
Proposed amendment by Germany, Sept. 2010. Accepted by WPG on 2010-09-21)
Accepted by WGP on 2010-11-24
Guideline 1/2 Are tanks intended for the transport of non-dangerous goods (as defined by ADR),
which are not pressurised during carriage but are pressurised during other foreseeable
operations, e.g. filling, emptying or cleaning, within the scope of PED?
Origin of the question : Q1 from Denmark (1997-10-02), redrafted by UK, comments from Germany of
1998.10.29, from Finland of 1998.11.16, new wording on 1998.11.26, Comments from
UK December 1998, from ITCO March 1999, new UK proposal June 1999, Part of the
question transferred to question 1/14
Accepted by WPG on 1999.06.11
Proposed amendment by Germany, September 2009
Editorial amendment accepted by WPG on 2009-10-01
Guideline 1/3: Are the replacements, repairs or modifications of pressure equipment in use covered by
the directive ?
Origin of the question : France Q3 accepted by WPG on 1998-10-13

Accepted by WGP on 1999.01.28, with minor modifications
Addition proposed during the discussion of 9/23
Accepted by WPG on 2004-02-24
Guideline 1 /4 When is a modification of a piping system not covered by the PED ?
Origin of the question : France Q4 accepted by WPG on 1998-10-13

Guideline 1/5 Which conformity assessment category applies to vessels with a volume less than or
equal to 0,1 litre ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 25, ORGALIME 25, comments from Finland by fax dated 1998-08-19, transferred
by the WPG to the Forum of NB, proposal NBF-SPV 98/010
Accepted by WPG on 1998-10-13 Comments from users by Fax 26 January 1999.
Referred back by WGP to WPG on 1999.01.29. Accepted by WPG on 1999.04.21
Editorial correction by WPG on 2002-06-18, presented to WGP on 2002.10.03.
List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 1

Guideline 1/6 : How will pressure gauges be classified ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 26, ORGALIME 26, transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB, proposal NBF-
SPV 98/006
Guideline 1/7
Origin of the question :
Guideline 1/8 What is a pressure accessory
Origin of the question : Part of CLAP 54, draft from Finland dated 1998.09.28
Comment from Denmark on 2001.01, discussed by WPG on 2001.04.23, no
modification
New-164 (NBF, March 05, CLAP 221-March 03), New-169 (Users, March 05)
Editorial amendment accepted by WPG on 2005.03.16, confirmed by WGP on
2005-06-28
Guideline 1/9 Are piping components such as pipes, tubing, fittings, expansion joints, hoses or other
pressure bearing components considered to be piping when they are placed on the
market as individual components?
Origin of the question : CLAP 1, ORGALIME 1, UK (dated June 98), redrafted by UK in 09.98
Guideline 1/10 Are the bottles for breathing equipment covered by the PED
Origin of the question : Q6 from Finland (1997-09-12), WPG draft on 1998.11.26 Modified proposal on 12
January 1999 Comments from UK, Finland, Austria, from April to June 1999,
Discussion with DG VII on 11 June 1999 results in a new WPG draft.
Discussed by WGP on 8 November 1999 : question to be reconsidered in liaison with
DG in charge of ADR, IMDG, ICAO. Comments from Austria on 9 February, revised
proposal by France on 16 February, discussed with Mr Morere on 18 February 2000
Accepted by WGP on 2000.03.24, with minor modifications ; reservation from UK and
Ireland to be resolved by the legal services of the Commission ; reservation from Italy
Slightly amended version accepted by WGP on 2000.11.08
Revised by WPG on 2002.12.04 (input from 1/30)
Guideline 1/11 How can Article 1 section 3.10 specifically be understood, especially the wording "for
which pressure is not a significant design factor"?
Origin of the question : CLAP 42, Q3 from Denmark (1997-10-02), transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB,
comments from UK, proposal NBF-SPV 98/001
Referred back by WGP to WPG on 1999.01.29 ; proposal to be submitted by Sweden,
discussed on 1999.04.21. Accepted by WPG on 1999.06.10
In put from New-116 : France, Feb 2003 (CLAP 216)
2003-11-03

Guideline 1/12 Are hermetically sealed and semi-hermetic compressors in the scope of the directive ?
SPV 98/019
Proposed revision by ORGALIME, April 2004 (New-144)
Guideline 1/13 Is the pressure equipment directive applicable to vacuum insulation of pressure
vessels?
Origin of the question : Q9 from Finland (1997-09-12), transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB, proposal
NBF-SPV 98/021
Guideline 1/14 If transport tanks for use in any mode of transport have been designed, manufactured
and approved for the carriage of dangerous goods under the ADR, RID, IMDG code or
the ICAO convention, will it also be necessary for them to comply with the PED when
they are placed on the market?
Origin of the question : Discussion of WPG 1/2, UK proposal dated June 1999, WPG draft 1999.06.11
Accepted by WPG on 1999.07.15, corrected 1 September 1999
Proposed revision by WPG on 2002-11-06 due to 1/30
Guideline 1/15 Is the operational function of a pressure accessory, as described in article 1 section
2.1.4 covered by the directive ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 54, ORGALIME 59, Q C.1 and C.2 of M. CROOKS version 5 disappeared from
version 6, Comments from Austria by fax dated 1998-08-03, comments from Finland by
fax dated 1998-08-19, transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB, MARCOGAZ 11,
proposal NBF-SPV 98/023, comments from users by letter 1998-08-18, UK proposal
June 1999 Discussed on 1999.06.11, new proposal drafted by France.
Accepted by WGP on 1999.11.08, with minor modification
Guideline 1/16 Article 1, paragraph 3.2 excludes from the directive networks for the supply,
distribution and discharge of water and associated equipment.
Clarification is required in respect of water, networks and associated equipment in this
context?
Origin of the question : ORGALIME 13 version 4, discussed on 1999-07-16, proposal by WPG on 1999-09-02
New wording proposed by UK inDecember 1999, including the question of expansion
vessels.
Guideline 1/17 What is the meaning of the expression "standard pressure equipment" in article 1 3.1
on pipelines?
Origin of the question : MARCOGAZ 1, Comments from Austria August 1998, CLAP 68, new wording by WPG
on 1999-07-16
Guideline 1/18 Are pipelines for conveyance for district heating water covered by the directive ?

Origin of the question : Denmark, 1999-08-16, proposal by WPG on 1999-09-02
Accepted by WPG on 1999.10.25, reservation from Sweden
Accepted by WGP on 2000.03.23, reservation from Sweden
Reservation withdrawn on 2000.06.29
Guideline 1/19 Are fluid power components and systems using liquids or gases of group 2 covered by
the PED ?
SPV 98/024, to be extended to fluid power components and systems as proposed by
ORGALIME 7, proposal by WPG on 1999-09-02
Accepted by WGP on 2000.03.24, with editorial modification
Guideline 1/20 When is a measuring or control system considered as a safety accessory under the
PED?
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, June 2002, User comments June

Guideline 1/21
Guideline 1/22 What guidance can be given regarding the application of the Directive to component
parts of pressure equipment such as flanges, dished ends and nozzles ?
Origin of the question : Q E.7 of M. CROOKS version 5 disappeared from version 6, proposal from UK on
2000.02 09
Accepted by WGP on 2000.06.29, with editorial amendment
Accepted by WGP on 2014-03-20 with editorial amendment
Guideline 1/23 Is the operational function of portable extinguishers covered by PED ?
Origin of the question : Question from Spain 1999.10.22

Guideline 1/24 According the definition of Article 1 paragraph 2.7 fluids may contain a suspension of
solids.
Is a system of solid pieces or liquid drops distributed in a gas still a fluid in the sense of
the PED?
Origin of the question : Germany, July 2001
Guideline 1/25 Are the sensors used as part of a safety chain to protect pressure equipment covered
by the PED ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 58, ORGALIME 48, new wording proposed by UK on April 2000
Accepted by WGP on 2000.06.29, with addition of definition of sensor according to
International Vocabulary of Metrology
Guideline 1/26 Which rules apply for pressure equipment which also meets the definition of machinery
in the machinery directive or which is intended to be installed in machinery?

Origin of the question : Sweden, April 2000 ; ORGALIME proposal on 2000.08.24, proposal by the Commission
on 2000.09.28, discussed on 2000.10.02, need discussion with Machinery experts,
French proposal in November 2000
Accepted by WPG on 2000-11-28, with reservation from France
Discussed by WGP on 2001.04.03, comments from France
Referred back to WPG, comments from Finland 17 April 2001, discussed again by
WPG on 2001-04-23, alternative proposal issued, to be further elaborated.
Discussed by WPG on 2001.05.16 Reservation from France
Accepted by WPG on 2001.09.29, with reservation from France to be resolved
Proposed revision by Germany in September 2009. ORGALIME input (new question)
Further modification Accepted by WPG on: 2010-01-13
Accepted by WGP on: 2010-03-31
Editorial amendment (operating instructions) Accepted by WPG on: 2010-09-21
Guideline 1/27 What does mobile off-shore mean in exclusion 3.14 ?
Origin of the question : Question discussed on 1999-09-02, UK proposal on 1999.11.23, postponed

Proposed text for ATEX clarification December 2001
New wording issued by WPG on 2001.12.19
Comments by Norway January 2002, new wording issued 15 January
Guideline 1/28 Are conveyance pipeline stations such as compressor, reduction, metering stations
covered by PED?
Origin of the question : MARCOGAZ 2, transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB on 1999.12.15, NBF
proposal on September 2000, discussed on 2000.11.28, UK proposed rewording in
2001.02
Editorial amendment WPG on 2012-4-24-25
Guideline 1/29 Where does the exclusion under Article. 1. 3.1 end if a pipeline pressure reduction
station is located within the perimeter of an industrial installation ?
Origin of the question : MARCOGAZ 4, discussed on 2000-11-28 and 2001.01.10, UK proposed rewording in
2001.02
New 148 from NBF, users proposed revision May 2004
Comments from Sweden December 04, New 166 ORGALIME March 05
Revision issued by WPG on 2005-03-15.
ORGALIME comments on 27 June 2005
Modification proposed by Orgalime
Discussed in WPG 2011.10.06 and 2012.01.12, 2012.09.12
Acceptance by WGP 2013.01.17
Acceptance by WGP 2013.03.07
Guideline 1/30 Is it permissible to affix both the CE marking for the PED and the mark for the TPED
on an item of pressure equipment?

Origin of the question : EC, August 2002
TPED 19, ORGALIME, June 2002, Finnish comments June 2002
Accepted in principle by WGP on 2002.10.03, but to be discussed again at the January
2003 meeting, together with possible revisions of other potentially impacted guidelines
(1/2 1/10 1/14 1/33), Finnish comments October 2002
Guideline 1/31 Are NGV filling stations covered by PED ?
Origin of the question : MARCOGAZ 6, transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB on 1999.12.15. NBF
proposal on September 2000.
Guideline 1/32 Are substations for district heating pipelines to be considered as assemblies in the
Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) ?
Origin of the question : Finland, September 2002

New wording by WPG on 2002.09.19
Guideline 1/33 Can receptacles (in the meaning of Article 2 of Transportable Pressure Equipment
Directive) that are pi marked be used as static pressure equipment without being
CE marked?
Origin of the question : Discussion with Mr Morere on 18 February 2000, proposal issued by the Commission
Discussed again with TPED people on 2001.01.11
Discussion of New-70
Proposed revision by WPG on 2001.12.18
Proposed revision by WPG on 2002-11-06 due to 1/30
editorially revised by WPG on 2014-07-01
Guideline 1/34 Is a slurry tanker that is emptied by compressed air within the scope of the Pressure
Equipment Directive?
Origin of the question : ORGALIME 86, Finland proposal on 2001.02

Guideline 1/35 Are gas cartridges for portable extinguishers in the scope of the Pressure Equipment
Directive?
Origin of the question : Finland, August 2001

Accepted by WPG on 2002.01.15, subject to confirmation by TPED group
Accepted by WGP on 2002.02.27, editorially reviewed by WPG on 2002.03.13
Guideline 1/36 Are gas cylinders, which are placed on the market to be used for fixed fire extinguishing
installations, covered by the PED or the TPED?

Origin of the question : EC , August 2001
Request for modification by Sweden
Guideline 1/37 Are items of pressure equipment such as manifolds, valves and piping used as well-
control equipment and placed between a subsea well template and the processing
platform for the oil and gas extraction and processing industry covered by the Pressure
Equipment Directive (PED) ?
Origin of the question : Norway, December 2001

Comments from Users, April and December 2002. Discussed by WPG on 2003.02.19,
and 2003.03.05, to be reviewed with Norway. Input from Norway and from NBF in April,
June 2003 New-121
Guideline 1/38 Is piping in fire extinguishing systems in the scope of the Pressure Equipment Directive
(PED)?
Origin of the question : Finland, November 2001. Discussed by WPG on 2001.12.19. New wording issued on
2002.01.16. Finnish comments in March 2002
New wording on 2002.03.13, ORGALIME comments
Guideline 1/39 Article 1, section 3.6 states that all "equipment classified as no higher than category I
under Article 9 of this Directive and covered by one of the following Directives: [.] are
excluded from the scope of this Directive:".
Does this exclusion also cover assemblies?
Origin of the question : Denmark, January 2002. Discussed by WPG on 2002.01.16, new proposal from EC on
February 2002, comments by ORGALIME and several sector committees
Guideline 1/40 What does pressure bearing housing mean in the definition of pressure accessory In
Article 1 paragraph 2.1.4
Origin of the question : UK, January 2002
Reworded by WPG on 2002.03.14, user comments
Proposal from NBF, December 2003 (TRG 0009)
Guideline of 2002.05.23 editorially amended by WPG on 2003-12-17, confirmed by
WGP on 2004.03.17
Editorial comment by Sweden on 2006-07-11
Guideline 1/41 Is a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or compressed natural gas (CNG) vessel (tank)
permanently installed in an engine powered fork lift truck in the scope of the PED?
Origin of the question : France, September 2002
Discussed by WGP on 2002.10.03, postponed to the January 2003 meeting
New wording accepted by WPG on 2002-11-05
Editorial comments by Germany, January 2007
Editorially amended version accepted by WPG on 2007-01-30
Confirmed by WGP on 2007-04-18

Guideline 1/42 Is the discharge piping from a pressure safety accessory, which will be exposed to a
pressure PS above 0,5 bar, in the scope of the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED)
when exhausting to ambient atmosphere ?
Accepted by WGP on 2003.01.27 (preliminary reservation from Belgium and Germany
not confirmed)
Guideline 1/43 Are safety accessories as defined by the PED limited to equipment which prevents
hazards due to overpressure?
Origin of the question : NBF (TRG 1-B), Feb 2003
Wording issued by WPG on 2003.02.19
Guideline 1/44 Is breathing apparatus, such as SCBA (self-contained breathing apparatus) in the scope
of the PED?
Origin of the question : New-123, EC, February 2003
Proposed revision by Germany, May 2008 ; discussed by WPG on 2008-12-16
NOT adopted yet in WGP 11-03-2015
Guideline 1/45 Does the exclusion cover equipment for the functioning of motor vehicles and their
trailers, wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors and two or three-wheel motor vehicles
which are not type-approved?
Origin of the question : New-111 : Sweden, November 2002
Discussed by WGP on 2003-11-03 ; to be submitted to the Unit responsible for the
vehicle directives for confirmation and then go back to WGP
Accepted by the Automotive Industry Unit ENTR.F5
Editorially amended by WPG on 2004-06-15
Confirmed by WGP on 2004.09.07
Proposed Addition by the Commission in November 2007
Accepted by WGP 2007-12-07
Guideline 1/46 Are items of pressure equipment installed on vehicles covered by the PED?
Origin of the question : New-50 : CLAP 142

Guideline 1/47 Is it correct to have a spare bundle of a shell & tube heat exchanger CE marked
separately from the CE-marking of the heat exchanger ?
Origin of the question : NBF (TRG10-B)
Guideline 1/48 Are Flame Arresters and flash back arresters covered by the PED?

Origin of the question : NEW-124, Germany, March 2003. Discussed by WPG on 2003.06.18. German input
August 2003
Discussed by WGP on 2003-11-03 ; referred back to WPG, to be further investigated
with experts in the field of ATEX directive. Discussed by WPG and ATEX experts on
2003-11-13
UK comments December 03.
Accepted by WPG on 2003-12-17, editorially amended by WPG on 2004-01-20
(Comments from manufacturers, February 2004. No change)
Guideline 1/49 Are fluid power accumulators intended for the operation of high-voltage electrical
equipment covered by exclusion 3.12 of article 1?
Origin of the question : New-135 : CLAP 206
Guideline 1/50 Is the flare tip at the end of piping in the scope of the Pressure Equipment Directive
(PED)?
Origin of the question : TRG 1-H August 2003 ; discussed by WPG on 2003-09-03 ; further information
submitted by NBF in January 2004.
Comments from Sweden February 2004
Guideline 1/51 What is meant by high-voltage in the context of Article 1 paragraph 3.12 ?
Origin of the question : New-99

Guideline 1/52 Article 3 paragraph 1.2 states that all pressure cookers shall satisfy essential
requirements set out in Annex I ; Article 1 paragraph 3.6 excludes from the scope of the
Directive equipment classified as no higher than category I and covered by Directive
73/23/EEC. How to apply these two Articles to electrical pressure cookers?
Origin of the question : New 186 (France, June 06)
Guideline 1/53 Are dryer rolls used in the paper industry covered by the PED ?
Origin of the question : New 199 (France, 2011)

1/54 ADR placeholder referred back to WPG in WGP meeting of 2013.03.07
Guideline 1/55 Is turbine piping covered by the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED)?
Origin of the question : New 202 (CABF 2011)

Discussed in various WPG meetings: 2012-4-24-25 and 2012-9-12

Guideline 1/56 Is equipment with a maximum allowable pressure PS 0,5 bar in the scope of the PED if it is
also designed to take account of an explosion pressure in an abnormal condition?
Origin of the question : New 208 (CABF 2012) explosion pressure

Discussed in WPG 24-25-4-2012, not finished yet
(original question: Is equipment (vessel, piping, accessory) with a maximum
allowable pressure PS 0.5 bar in the scope of the PED if it is also designed
to withstand an explosion pressure > 0.5 bar in an abnormal condition?

Guideline 1/57 Are vacuum vessels in the scope of the PED?
Origin of the question : New 209 (DE,2012)

Comments LU
Accepted by WPG on 24-25/4/2012
Not Accepted by WGP: referred back to WPG
Modified and accepted by WPG on 25/04/2013
Question : no WPG Is piping constructed on the site and under the responsiblity of the user as part of an
(Old WPG 1/7) industrial installation covered by the PED ?
Origin of the question : UK-Q3 Discussed at the WPG 1999 January meeting
Withdrawn by WPG on 2000-08-24, covered by guideline 3/2
Question :no WPG Are the exchangeable elements of a pressure equipment (like for example a valve
stem, a part of a thread connection of an accumulator gas loaded, bolts, flanges, ...)
covered by the PED ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 55, ORGALIME 55, new draft from France dated 1998.11.24, UK proposal on
2000.02.09
Covered by 1/3, 1/22 and 8/3
Question : No WPG Are surface facilities for underground storage covered by PED ?
Deleted on 2000-11-28
Question : No WPG Are pre-heaters in reduction stations covered by PED and which are the requirements ?
Origin of the question : MARCOGAZ 5, transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB on 1999.12.15. NBF
Deleted on 2000-11-28
Question : no WPG Are all forms of piping, e.g. sensing and process lines etc. included in the PED ?
Origin of the question : MARCOGAZ 19

Deleted on 2000-11-28, covered by guideline 1/9
Question : no WPG What is meant by controlled safety pressure relief systems (CSPRS) and safety
related measurement control and regulation (SRMCR) in Article 1.2.3 ?
Origin of the question : UK Q1, input received from Germany, proposal by WPG on 1999-09-03, discussed on
1999.10.25 and transferred to the Forum of Notified bodies, guidance to be restricted to
definition. Proposal NBF 00/019 received, wait for the proposal for WPG 1/21. Deleted
by WPG on 2002.01.16, to be included in 1/21

Question : no WPG What is meant by the term well-control equipment used in the petroleum, gas and
geothermal exploration and extraction industry and in underground storage which is
intended to contain and/or control well pressure?
Origin of the question : UK proposal on 1999.12.14, new wording by Germany on 1999.12.15, comments from
the users on 2000.02.09. Deleted by WPG on 2002.01.16
Question :no WPG How are the different modules applied to controlled safety pressure relief systems
(CSPRS) and safety related measurement control and regulation (SRMCR) ?
Origin of the question : UK Q1, input received from Germany, discussed on 1999-09-03, transferred to the
Forum of Notified bodies (as question 1/21nf). Deleted by WPG on 2008-03-18
2 Classification and categories
Guideline 2/1: There is a contradiction between the requirements in article 3 paragraph 1.4 and those
in annex II point 3.
Can pressure accessories be classified as article 3.3 as indicated in the tables of
annex II or must all of them satisfy the essential requirements as indicated in article 3
paragraph 1.4 ?
Origin of the question : France Q1 Accepted by WPG on 1998/10/13
Accepted by WGP on 1999.01.28 (reservation from Sweden)
Discussed again in WPG on 2000.11.29, no modification
Reservation from Denmark registered on 2001.01.10
Concerns by ORGALIME on 2001.11.28/29. Discussed by WPG on 2001.12 18/19 and
2002.01.15/16
Confirmed by legal services of the Commission on 28 February 2002
Guideline 2/2 : The directive uses the notion of DN (defined in article 1, paragraph. 2.6) for the
classification of piping and piping accessories (cf. Article 3, paragraph. 1.3). How to
apply the directive for classifying the tubular products or accessories for which the
notion of DN does not exist (copper tubes, plastic valves, pressure regulators, hollow
sections, ...) ?
SPV 98/007
Accepted by WPG on 1998/10/13
Accepted by WPG on 2013.1.17, with minor modification (added pressure regulators in
question and answer on pressure accessories
Guideline 2/3 How should vessels and piping for superheated water be classified?
by the WPG to the Forum of NB, proposal NBF-SPV 98/002
Accepted by WGP on 1999.01.28, with minor modifications, editorially corrected by
WPG on 2002.04.10
Guideline 2/4 Which type of pressure equipment is a heat exchanger ?
SPV 98/022, proposal from Finland dated 1998.11.09
Addition proposed by Denmark on August 2000. Proposed revision accepted by WPG
on 2000.10.03. Discussed by WGP on 2000.11.08, counter-proposal by ORGALIME,

referred back to WPG, discussed by WPG on 2000.11.29, new wording issued.
Proposed revision by UK, discussed again on 2001.01.10, no consensus, new proposal
from Finland 2001.02, postponed, discussed again on 2001.11.21. No agreement, leave
the 1999 version as it is. Proposed revision by EC, June 2002, Finnish comments June
2002
Accepted by WPG on 2002-06-19 at the majority, with an alternative proposal
Discussed by WGP on 2002.10.03, comments by CECOMAF-EUROVENT tabled at the
meeting, referred back to WPG. Discussed by WPG on 2002.12.04. Input expected
from Denmark. Proposal from ORGALIME, January 2003. Discussed by WGP on 27
January 2003. Revised ORGALIME contribution circulated to the WGP on 28 January
2003. Postponed. Input from the Commission in February 2003 and from the users in
February 2003. New wording from WPG on 2003-02-18 and on 2003.03.05. Comments
from manufacturers on 21 March 2003
Referred back to WPG new wording accepted by WPG on 2003-05-14 with potential
Swedish reservation. Comments from Finland in June 2003, confirmed by WPG
2003.06.18
EC comments August 04
Editorially amended by WGP on 2004.09.07
Comments from Sweden, March 05. Discussed by WPG on 2003-05-16, no
modification, Swedish reservation updated March 05
Guideline 2/5 Some warm water generators having a volume greater than 2 L are intended to
generate water at temperature less than 110 C, but are fitted with a safety temperature
limiter which permits operation up to a temperature of 120 C.
What value of TS shall be declared by the manufacturer ?
Origin of the question : Question from UK, 23 February 1999, new proposal on 1999-09-03, discussed on
1999.10.25, new WPG proposal on 1999.12.14, new proposal by UK on 28 January
New-189 (Denmark, September 06)
Guideline 2/6 How should a fired or otherwise heated equipment be classified if a fluid other than
water is being heated ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 69, new proposal on 1999-09-03, discussed on 1999.10.25, new proposal from
UK on 9 February
Guideline 2/7 Article 9 classifies fluids with reference to Article 2 (2) of Directive 67/548/EEC. Does
this mean that all fluids classified as dangerous are group 1 ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 34, ORGALIME 34, comments from Finland by mail in August 98, transferred by
the WPG to the Forum of NB, discussed by WPG on 1999.10.26
Accepted by WGP on 2000.06.29, with editorial amendment, confirmed by WPG on
2000-08-24
New 158, Denmark November 04, ORGALIME comments December 04
EC comments November 2005
Guideline 2/8 How should a vessel which is intended to contain water below 100 C be classified
when there is a marginal gas cover ?

Origin of the question : CLAP 40 version 4, ORGALIME 2, comments from Finland by fax dated 1998-08-19,
transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB, proposal from NB forum discussed on
199.10.26
Guideline 2/9 Which pressure and volume values must be used to determine the category (PS.V) of
vessels used as hydropneumatic accumulators, given that these are made up of two
chambers with different fluids?
Origin of the question : Question from Spain received on 1999.10.21, new wording on 1999.10.26
Accepted by WGP on 2000.03.24, with a broader question
Guideline 2/10 If a vessel contains a fluid which meets the conditions of the introductory paragraph to
Article 3, paragraph 1.1(a) (e.g. air) and a liquid which meets the conditions of the
introductory paragraph to Article 3, paragraph 1.1(b) (e.g. water) - how shall the vessel
be classified?
Origin of the question : CLAP 93 discussed on 1999.12.14, new proposal expected from France, proposal from
UK on 2000.02.09, 2000.08, 2001.02
Guideline 2/11 When is it possible for a manufacturer to apply a module from a higher category and
what are the consequences ?
Origin of the question : UK, April 2000
Accepted by WGP on 2000-11-07, with minor amendments
Guideline 2/12 For warm water boilers which are controlled by a temperature thermostat and protected
by a safety temperature limiter, does the maximum allowable temperature (TS) mean:.
(a) the maximum intended operating temperature under normal conditions as controlled
by the thermostat; or;
(b) the temperature setting of the ultimate over-temperature safety device i.e. the
limiter?
Origin of the question : Proposal from UK on 2000.01.28

Guideline 2/13 How can manufacturers use Article 3.1 to determine the appropriate conformity
assessment Tables in Annex II?
Origin of the question : Proposal from UK on 2000.01.28
Accepted by WGP on 2000.06.29, with minor amendments
Guideline 2/14 Article 3, section 1.1(a) second indent, states that all portable extinguishers must
comply with the essential safety requirements (ESRs) and be assessed according to
Annex II, Table 2. In addition, Table 2 states that portable extinguishers must
exceptionally be classified according to category III. To what parts of a portable
extinguisher do these requirements apply?
Origin of the question : UK, April 2000, CLAP 89, proposal from Finland 25 September 2000
Confirmed by WPG on 2001.08.27

Guideline 2/15 Does the classification of the pressure cookers in category III for the assessment of the
design mean that also the essential safety requirements are linked to category III?
Origin of the question : CLAP 41, ORGALIME 5

Guideline 2/16 Are pressure regulators safety accessories in the sense of PED?
proposal on September 2000, discussed by WPG on 2000-11-28, new wording issued
Accepted by WPG on 2001.01.10 editorial correction on 2001.02.21
New 191, ORGALIME November 2006 ; German comments, January 2007
Input from UK, March 2007
Guideline 2/17 How are pressure accessories classified?
Origin of the question : Proposal from Denmark on 2000.02.10, CLAP 8, CLAP 8, ORGALIME 8, proposal
NBF-SPV 98/029, draft discussed by WPG on 2000.10.03
Accepted by WPG on 2000.11.29, with reservation from Sweden
Reservation from Denmark registered on 2001.01.10
Accepted by WGP on 2001.06.26, without reservation
Guideline 2/18 Article 10, section 1.4 states that a manufacturer may choose to apply one of the
conformity assessment procedures which apply to a higher (conformity assessment )
category if available. Does this mean that a manufacturer of pressure equipment
covered by Article 3, section 3, referred to as Sound Engineering Practice (SEP), can
choose to apply Module A for example and hence apply a CE Marking?
Origin of the question : UK, August 2000

Guideline 2/19 Do two housings, designed to contain fluids under pressure and which have a common
boundary (e.g. separating wall), constitute two vessels, or two chambers of the same
vessel ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 110, draft discussed on 2000.10.02, to be confirmed

Discussed by WGP on 2001.06.26, referred back to WPG
Discussed by WPG on 2001.08.29 and 2001.11.21. New proposal by Finland
ORGALIME, December 2001. Discussed by WPG on 2001.12.18. Rvised Finland-
ORGALIME proposal in January 2002
Accepted by WPG on 2002.12.15 Potential reservation from Denmark and Sweden
Accepted by WGP on 2002.02.27, with reservation from Denmark and Sweden
New 175, France, June 05
Amended by WPG on 2005-07-05
Guideline 2/20 What is meant by flammable in article 9 paragraph 2.1, 4 th indent of the PED?
Origin of the question : Finland

Accepted by WGP on 2001.10.18 (subject no objection by Belgium and Spain within
the next 4 weeks)
New 160, Sweden December 04

Guideline 2/21 Tables 1 & 6 of annex II of PED include a reference to unstable gas (this implies that
we should classify the equipment in categories III or IV). How does one define an
unstable gas ?
Origin of the question : ORGALIME 80, December 2001, reworded by WPG on 2001.12.19. New wording
issued on 2002.01.16. Comments from Germany in February 2002
Guideline 2/22 What does overheating mean in Article 3 paragraph 1.2 ?
Origin of the question : Question derived from New-68

Guideline 2/23 How should a solar panel be classified?
Origin of the question : Austria, November 2001

Comments from UK, March 05
Editorial amendment by WPG on 2005.03.16, to be confirmed, re-discussed by WPG
on 2005-07-05, waiting for input from UK
UK proposal November 2005
Guideline 2/24 Article 9, paragraph 3 states that where a chamber contains several fluids,
classification shall be on the basis of the fluid which requires the highest category. Can
some guidance be provided on how to proceed with the fluid mixture classification?
Origin of the question : UK August 2000, comments from Finland and users on February 2001, amended
version proposed by the Commission on 3 March 2001,ORGALIME comments June
2002, proposal from Finland June 2002
Guideline 2/25 Is it possible to classify pressure equipment in a Category higher than the category
resulting from the application of tables in Annex II ?
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, August 2002

Accepted by WGP on 2002.10.04, with a Swedish reservation on the example due to
guideline 2/1
Guideline 2/26 How to classify a vessel which contains a "non-suspended dangerous" solid blanketed
by a group 2 gas ?
Origin of the question : New-120, NBF (TRG 1-D), Feb 2003. Discussed by WPG on 2003.02.19
Guideline 2/27 How to classify pressure equipment containing one or more fluids when a chemical or
physical reaction takes place therein ?
Origin of the question : New-114, Belgium, January 2003.


Guideline 2/28 How shall a "piping" (as defined in Article 1 paragraph 2.1.2), comprising pipes with
different DNs, be classified?
Origin of the question : Sweden, November 2002, Finnish comments Feb 2003
Guideline 2/29 A pressure vessel (PS > 0,5 bar) has a vacuum relief valve mounted to protect against
collapsing (external pressure) when drained.
Is this valve a safety accessory?
Origin of the question : NBF/TRG O9/2, March 03.
Discussed by WPG on 2003-03-25. To be revised by TRG. Proposal from TRG in June
2003
Guideline 2/30 How should a fluid containing a suspension of a solid be classified?
Origin of the question : New 129 : EC, May 2003

Guideline 2/31 How to consider, in application of the Pressure Equipment Directive, piping components
connected together and connected also to valves, and which are the provisions for the
placing on the market ?
Origin of the question : New-133, CLAP 239 ; User comments August 2003
Amended draft issued by WPG on 2003-11-13, to be confirmed
Guideline 2/32 A quick opening closure on a pressure vessel is fitted with a device to prevent it being
opened whenever the pressure or temperature of the fluid presents a hazard in
accordance with annex I section 2.3.
Is such a preventive device to be considered as a safety accessory according to the
PED?
Origin of the question : New 142, Denmark January 2004
Guideline 2/33 When a safety accessory consists of a safety chain which itself includes items of
pressure equipment (for example a valve or a cylinder), in which category shall this
equipment be classified ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 224
Accepted by WGP on 2004-03-17, with a request to NBF to submit an improved
wording to WPG
Guideline 2/34 How to determine the category of a hermetically sealed refrigeration compressor ?
Origin of the question : New-146 (France, April 2004)

ORGALIME comments September 04
Guideline 2/35 Some piping is provided with a double envelope. How do these double envelopes have
to be considered?
Origin of the question : New 156 France, October 04. Comments from Denmark October 04
Comments from Finland, December 04

Guideline 2/36 Are hot blast stoves, which heat incoming cold air to a blast furnace by a regenerative
process, covered by the exclusion in Article 1 paragraph 3.11?
Origin of the question : New 161, UK December 04
Guideline 2/37 How to consider, for the application of PED, a condensate trap installed on piping?
Origin of the question : New 157, France, October 04. Comments from Denmark October 04
Discussed by WPG on 2004.10.07. No need. New input from France December04
Guideline 2/38 What kind of silencers is covered by the exclusion of Article 1 paragraph 3.16?
Origin of the question : New 162, France December 04

Guideline 2/39 Article 9 classifies fluids with reference to Article 2 (2) of Directive 67/548/EEC. This
directive will be repealed by the Regulation No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation). In this
regulation the classification of some substances has changed. Which document shall
be used for the determination of the fluid group and then the applicable category of
pressure equipment?
Origin of the question : France, March 2009

EC input, September 2009
Guideline 2/40 How to apply the PED to a pressure accessory equipped with a safety accessory?
Origin of the question : Proposal by Germany

Guideline 2/41 Microchannel heat exchanger
Origin of the question : NEW 204 FR

Accepted by WPG on: pending
Discussion ongoing. After initial discussion in April 2012, comments by Orgalime in
Sept 2012, Orgalime paper for WPG 2013.01.17)
Accepted by WGP on
3 Assemblies
Guideline 3/1 Must the global conformity assessment procedure be applied to assemblies covered by
article 3.2.1, e.g. to boilers, even if the assembling is done under the responsibility of
the user ?
Origin of the question : Q2 from Finland (1997-09-12) redrafted in August 98, redrafted by UK on 22.09.98.
Accepted by WGP on 1999.01.28 (reservation from Sweden and Denmark)
Downgraded by WGP on 2000.03.24 on the basis of legal advice from the Commission
New draft accepted by WPG on 2000.08.24
Accepted by WGP on 2000.11.08, with minor amendment
Guideline 3/2 : Are the joining operations on site covered by the PED ?

Origin of the question : CLAP 9, ORGALIME 9 [42], Q F.2 of M. CROOKS version 5 disappeared from version
6. Accepted by WPG on 1998-10-12
Accepted by WGP on 1999.01.28 (reservation from Sweden and Denmark)
Confirmed by WGP on 2000.01.24 on the basis of legal advice from the Commission
New draft accepted by WPG on 2000.10.03
Guideline 3/3 The effect of the derogation in article 3.2.3 from the introductory paragraph in article
3.2 is not clear. In the circumstances, how should article 3.2.3 be applied ?
Origin of the question : Question from UK dated 09.98. Accepted by WPG on 1998-10-12
Referred back by WGP to WPG on 1999.01.29. Revised guidelines to be proposed by
Sweden Denmark and Finland
Guideline 3/4 What shall be the minimum extent of the assembly "boiler" which shall be subjected to
a global conformity assessment procedure in accordance with article 3 section 2.1 ?
Origin of the question : Linked to question 3/1, proposal from France of 1998.11.24
Accepted by WPG on 1999.07.15, corrected 1 September, linked to the outcome of
guideline 3/1
Accepted by WGP on 1999.11.08, deletion of the note about outcome of guideline 3/1
by WPG on 2001.02.20
Guideline 3/5 Shall the assemblies defined in the article 3 paragraph 2.3 carry the CE-marking ?
Origin of the question : Ahola Erkki 4 February 1999
Accepted by WPG on 1999.07.16, editorial corrections on 1999.09.01
Addition proposed by Finland on August 2000
Proposed revision accepted by WPG on 2000.10.02
Discussed by WGP on 2000.11.07, referred back to WPG, proposal from Finland on 20
November 2000, new wording by WPG on 2000.11.20
Guideline 3/6 Must a hydrostatic pressure test be carried out on an assembly and should the value
laid down in section 7.4 then be followed ?
Origin of the question : Question derived from WPG 8/2, draft proposed by Finland, proposal on 1999-09-03,
discussed on 1999.10.25, need further clarification
Guideline 3/7 Which conditions shall be used in the assessment of an item of pressure equipment as
per Article 3.1 without a CE-marking in an assembly being subject to the global
conformity assessment procedure?
Origin of the question : Question from Denmark 1 October 1999, discussed by WPG on 1999.12.15
Guideline 3/8 Can some guidance be provided on the terms used in the definition of an assembly?
Origin of the question : CLAP 65 ; UK proposal on 2000.08.24 ; WPG draft to be confirmed

Comments from Ireland, October 2005-12-08. No change (WPG 28 November 2005)

Guideline 3/9 Does the Pressure Equipment Directive put formal upper limits to the extent of an
assembly?
Origin of the question : New-12 (UK), revised UK proposals in November 2000 and January 2001
Discussed by WPG on 2001.01.11, registration of issues to be reviewed, input from the
Commission on the concepts manufacturer/installer/assembler, Finland, user and new
UK proposals in February 2001.
Wording issued by WPG on 2001.02.20 for submission to WGP
User proposed revision dated March 2001
Discussed by WGP on 2001.06.26/27, referred back to WGP
ORGALIME proposal June 2001 to combine 3/9 and 3/10, reviewed by ECUI July 2001,
then by France August 2001
Accepted by WGP on 2001.10.18 (subject no objection by Spain within the next 4
weeks)
EC proposal for revision August 2003 ; ORGALIME comments August 2003
Discussed by WPG on 2003-11-12 ; discussed again on 2004.01.19 with the EC
representative of machinery directive and CECIMO representative. To be further
investigated. Discussed again on 2004-06-16 with CECIMO representatives ; to be
further investigated by EC with input from ORGALIME
Input from ORGALIME discussed by WPG on 2004.10.07 : no objection from Member
states attending the meeting (Austria, Czech republic, Finland, France, Germany, UK,
Sweden with minor reservation) ; still concerns from EC.
Guideline confirmed on 200410.07
Guideline 3/10 Is it possible to put assemblies on the market which are not CE-marked?
Origin of the question : Question derived from WPG 3/9

Referred back to WPG, together with WPG 3/9, on 2001.06.27
weeks)
Discussed by WPG on 2003-11-12 ; discussed again on2004.01.19 with the EC
Guideline 3/11 If an item of pressure equipment complies with national non-PED Regulations and is
placed on the market on, or before, 29 May 2002, is it possible for it to be subsequently
included in an assembly which is placed on the market after 29 May 2002?
Origin of the question : UK, September 2000

Accepted by WGP on 2000.11.07, with amendment
Guideline 3/12 Do only the essential requirements given in Article 10 paragraph 2 apply to assemblies?

weeks)
Guideline 3/13 When several items of pressure equipment are assembled by a manufacturer to
constitute a functional whole, and when one of those items, essential for the functional
operation of the whole, is excluded from the PED, is the resulting whole considered as
an assembly covered by the PED ?

Origin of the question : ORGALIME, June 2001
Addition from the Commission on 2001.09.04 and input from France on 2001.09.11
ORGALIME comments April 2002
Discussed by WPG on 2003-11-12 ; discussed again on2004.01.19 with the EC
Guideline 3/14 Article 3, paragraph 2.3 states that the manually fed assemblies must comply with
certain essential requirements. Furthermore article 1, section 2.1.5 states that the
assemblies shall be assembled by the manufacturer.
Assuming that the manufacturer wants to use EC design-examination (module B1) in
accordance with annex II, table 4, is it then sufficient that the manufacturer of the boiler
gets an EC design-examination certificate or shall it be the installer (plumber), who
assembles the protective devices to the boiler on site that must obtain the EC design-
examination certificate?
Origin of the question : Denmark, March 2002, discussed by WPG on 2002-02-19, new wording issued
Guideline 3/15 How are the categories of permanent joinings in an assembly determined ?
Origin of the question : New-107, ORGALIME, November 2002, Finnish comments Feb 2003
Finnish comments 17 March 2003. Swedish comments 21March 2003
ORGALIME comments on 29 October 2003. Discussed by WPG on 2004-04-15. New
proposal from ORGALIME May 2004
Guideline 3/16 In Article 10.2.b what does the highest category applicable to the equipment
concerned mean?
Origin of the question : New-106, ORGALIME, November 2002

Guideline 3/17 Is it permissible to put on the market a CE marked assembly not equipped with safety
accessory where there is a risk of exceeding the allowable limits?
Origin of the question : New-130, CLAP 225 ; User comments August 2003
New-177, CABF November 2005

Guideline 3/18 When items of pressure equipment making up an assembly have not been previously
subjected to an assessment and are therefore assessed at the same time as the
assembly in accordance with the point a) of article 10 paragraph 2, shall they carry the
information required in annex I section 3.3?
Origin of the question : Proposed by France
Guideline 3/19 If, during functional testing of an assembly at the user's premises by the manufacturer
before placing it on the market, modification of an item of pressure equipment is
necessary, shall this modification be carried out in accordance with Directive 97/23/EC?
Guideline 3/20 How to consider a transportable (TPED) pressure receptacle incorporated in an

assembly being placed on the market under PED?
Origin of the question : New 203 DE-2011
No guideline If a pressure vessel (e.g. expansion vessel) in Article 3.2.3 assembly is classified to
category I or higher shall the assembly still satisfy only those essential safety
requirements given in Article 3.2.3 ?

Deleted by WGP on 2000.11.07
4 Evaluation assessment procedures
Guideline 4/1 Is design approval by a notified body required under module G ?
Origin of the question : Question from UK by letter dated 06/98, redrafted by UK and accepted by WPG on
1998.09.18
Guideline 4/2 : Can a manufacturers existing QA certification which is in accordance with the
standards EN ISO 9000 be taken into account by the notified bodies when approving
QA systems for modules D, D1, E, E1, H, or H1 of the PED ?
SPV 98/017
Guideline 4/3 How to apply conformity assessment modules when some parts of an item of pressure
equipment or some operations are sub-contracted ?.
by the WPG to the Forum of NB, proposal from UK on 2000.02 09
Accepted by WGP on 2000.06.29, with minor corrections

Guideline 4/4 Is there any obligation that only one notified body intervene for the two modules of a
combination, for example EC-type examination and quality assurance ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 17, ORGALIME 17, proposal from UK on 2000.02 09
Accepted by WGP on 2000.06.29, with editorial correction
Guideline 4/5 Clauses 3 and 4 of module B1 in Annex III deal with information concerning
qualifications or approvals of permanent joining that may not be available at the design
stage. What are the minimum requirements in clause 3, last indent, and clause 4.1, 2 nd
and 3rd indents ?
Origin of the question : Users, 2000.03.15, CLAP form 19.
WPG proposal on 2001.02.21, proposal by Finland 17 April 2001
Guideline 4/6 Can an assembly be composed of pressure equipments dealt with different conformity
assessment modules ?

Accepted by WPG on 2000-08.25
Guideline 4/7 Shall the manufacturer of pressure equipment submit operating instructions as part of
the conformity assessment by a Notified Body, and shall the Notified Body verify the
content?
Origin of the question : NBF, November 2001

Guideline 4/8 Are tests by the notified body required for module B1 ?
Origin of the question : Derived from users proposal of 2000.03.15, proposal by Finland 17 April 2001
Guideline 4/9 Is a manufacturer of component required to include a design examination, proof test
and final inspection by a Notified Body if the component is intended for later use in
PED equipment ?
Origin of the question : New-108, ORGALIME, November 2002
Guideline 4/10 There are many organisations that design pressure equipment that is subsequently
fabricated by another organisation. Is it permissible for the company responsible for the
design to obtain an EC design examination certificate (B1) and the fabricator obtain an
appropriate certificate for the manufacturing phase, e.g. Product Verification (F).
Origin of the question : NBF/TRG O4/2, March 03.
Guideline 4/11 Should the holder and the bursting disc which combine to produce a bursting disc
safety device for use above 0,5 bar carry separate CE marking?
Origin of the question : New-170, UK, March 05

WPG 4/12 What information should be included in the quality system approval notification
document issued by the notified body concerning the scope of products?
Origin of the question : New-176, CABF November 05
Proposed revision by CABF on 2006-06-30
Proposed amendment by CABF, March 2007
Discussed by WPG on 2007-03-27, no change
Proposed Amendment by CABF PED/SPV 2007-11-06. Circulated to WPG for
comments.
Accepted by WGP 2007-12-07
WPG 4/13 Is it permissible for the Notified Body to delegate the witnessing of the final inspection
and proof test under module F or the proof test under module G to the manufacturer ?
Origin of the question : New-178, CABF November 05
WPG 4/14 May a manufacturer place pressure equipment on the market under its name when it
has been produced and conformity assessed by another manufacturer under the
Pressure Equipment Directive (PED)?
Origin of the question : CABF proposal (own brand labeling)
Accepted by WGP on (NOT ACCEPTED in mtg 2010-03-31 objection by
Commission legal/hoU referred to Regulatory Unit (C1) of DG ENTR as
horizontal issue
WPG 4/15 A manufacturer has equipment in stock manufactured under a QA module (D/D1, E/E1
or H/H1). After expiry of the QA system certification the manufacturer switches from
Notified Body X to Notified Body Y for the new certification.
Can the manufacturer deliver equipment with Notified Body number "X" to his
customers after the expiry date of the certificate?
Origin of the question : Accepted by WPG on 2010.11.25

Acceptance by WGP on 2012.03.06
Question : no WPG Is material used in the manufacture of pressure equipment considered to be a product
or a commodity and can the requirements for conformity assessment be applied to
materials under the PED ?
Origin of the question : Q A.8 of M. CROOKS version 5 disappeared from version 6

No guideline needed
Question : no WPG The directive defines for each "risk" category a given number of applicable modules.
How are chosen these modules in function of the type of manufacturing (with
QS/without QS series/unit) ?
Must all serially produced equipment be subject to EC type examination (module B)
and is the selection of modules H and H1 restricted to unit production only ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 32, Q E.6 of M. CROOKS version 5 disappeared from version 6
Comments from Finland by fax dated 1998-08-19, proposal from UK on 2000.02 09
No guideline needed
Question no WPG How is a type defined for module B or B1 ?
Origin of the question : Austria, October 1998, discussed on 1999-09-03, interest of manufacturers on this
issue to be confirmed. No guideline for the time being, waiting for a proposal

Question no WPG Which are the documents to be given for a design examination ?
by the WPG to the Forum of NB ; proposal NBF-SPV 98/018
No guideline needed for the time being
Question :no WPG Is it possible to apply a module H or H1 when the design and the manufacturing are
made by two different entities independent from each other within a same industrial
group, each of the entities having a quality system in accordance with the specifications
of the directive ?

Covered by 4/3
Question : no WPG In respect of module H1, section 2 where it refers to increased surveillance, in the form
of unexpected visits by the notified body, does this only refer to the final assessment,
as given in annex I 3.2 and must the notified body carry out the three elements of
final assessment as part of module H1 ?
Origin of the question : Q F.1 of M. CROOKS version 5 disappeared from version 6. Deleted by WPG on
2002.01.16
5 Interpretation of the essential safety requirements on design
Guideline 5/1 How should the condition related to the experimental design method without calculation
in annex I section 2.2.2 be interpreted stipulating that : "experimental design may be
carried out without any calculation, in accordance with section 2.2.4 if the product of the
maximum permissible pressure PS and the volume V is less than 6 000 bar. L or the
product PS.DN is less than 3 000 bar" ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 53, ORGALIME 54, Q C.3 of M. CROOKS version 5 disappeared from version 6,
transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB, proposal NBF-SPV 98/026
Guideline 5/2 In respect of pressure limiting devices, does the PED require that the permitted short
duration pressure surge of 1,1 PS be maintained when the equipment is exposed to
external fire conditions ?
Origin of the question : Q C.6 (1st part) of M. CROOKS version 5, discussed by WPG on 1999.12.15, proposal
from UK on 2000.02 09
Guideline 5/3 Is leakage for pressure equipment covered by PED?
proposal on September 2000, discussed by WPG on 2000-11-28, new wording issued
Input through New-91 proposed by EC on July 2002 , comments from users August
2002; Discussed by WPG on 2002.12.05, to be reviewed together with 5/3
Proposed revision by WPG on 2003.02.19.
Guideline 5/4 Shall all types of portable extinguishers be equipped with protective devices against
over-pressure ?

Origin of the question : Sweden, 12 April 2001, comments from Finland on 2001.05.14
Comments by UK, Austria, CEN consultant, Users in March 2002.
New wording issued by WPG on 2002.03.13, Italian manufacturers comments, Finnish
comments
Accepted by WGP on 2002.05.23, reservation from Italy and Spain
Guideline 5/5 Is it possible that the sample to be tested for the experimental design method be
produced without its thicknesses reduced by the corrosion allowance ?

Guideline 5/6 Does the essential requirement 2.10, which deals with protective devices, give the
choice of the use of a safety accessory or of the use of a monitoring device ?
Origin of the question : New-131, CLAP 226
New-192 (ORGALIME, November 2006)
Guideline 5/7 Are the limits in Annex I section 2.2.2 applicable to components of pressure equipment
(like manhole covers, special flanges, etc)?
Origin of the question : New -165 NBF, March 05
Guideline 5/8 In the 3rd paragraph of the essential safety requirement 2.11.1, there is the sentence
These principles include, in particular, fail-safe modes, redundancy, diversity and self-
diagnosis., therefore do all safety accessories require to be for example self-diagnosis?
Origin of the question : New -196 UK , May 2011
Guideline 5/9 Is there a value defined for the acceptable limit of the short duration referred to in Annex
1 section 2.11.2?
Origin of the question : New -201 FR , May 2011
Discussed in WPG 2012-4-24-25
Not accepted by WGP: referred back to WPG
Modified and accepted in WPG of 25/4/2013
Question :No WPG The determination of PS in the design may be influenced by a number of factors
associated with the design of the pressure system including the characteristics and
location of the pressure relief devices and the properties of the fluid in the system. Is
the manufacturer responsible for ensuring that all these factors are properly considered
before PS can be determined ? Or, is the design of the pressure system and the
selection of PS within that system the responsibility of the user ?
Origin of the question : Q C.5 of M. CROOKS version 5 to delete in version 6

No guideline needed

Question : No WPG What requirements apply to the hazard of noise when pressure limiting devices
operate ?
Origin of the question : Q C.6 (2nd part) of M. CROOKS version 5 disappeared from version 6
No guideline needed
6 Interpretation of the essential safety requirements on manufacturing
Guideline 6/1 : According to point 3.1.2 (permanent joining) of annex I the third party must perform
examination and tests in order to carry out the approvals of operating procedures and
personnel. M ust the representative of the third party witness the whole permanent
joining and testing process ?
Origin of the question : Q1 form Finland (1997-09-12) redrafted in August 98, accepted by WPG on 1998.09.
Comments from Sweden December 04
Discussed by WGP on 2005-06-28, referred back to WPG
Revised version accepted by WPG on 2005-07-05
Amended by WPG on 2005-11-28
Guideline 6/2 Which documents have to be available for the final inspection specified in
annex I section 3.2.1 ?
SPV 98/015
Accepted in principle by WGP on 1999.01.28. Amended wording accepted by WPG on
1999.02.25
Guideline 6/3: How to interpret point 3.1.1 of annex I as far as the forming procedures are concerned?
Does it impose for the manufacturer a qualification procedure for forming operations
which will be validated by the notified body?
Origin of the question : CLAP 28, transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB, proposal NBF-SPV 98/013
Guideline 6/4 : Must a notified body take into account a procedure of permanent joints qualified by
another notified body or a recognised third-party organization ?
SPV 98/014
Swedish comments on 2001.02, discussed by WPG on 2001.12.19. No change

Guideline 6/5 Do the requirements related to permanent joints given in Annex I points 3.1.2 and 3.1.3
apply also to permanent joints other than welding
SPV 98/008, proposal from M LEGIN dated 1998.11.09, question splitted into 2 different
questions
Request for modification by France
Guideline 6/6 In the absence of harmonized standards, what approach is to be followed for the
approval of personnel in charge of permanent joining ?
SPV 98/008, proposal from M LEGIN dated 1998.11.09, question splitted into 2 different
questions, discussed on 199-07-15, waiting for new proposal, transferred by the WPG
to the Forum of NB on 1999.12.15. CLAP form 148 submitted in December 2001,
reworded by WPG on 2002.01.16
Guideline 6/7 Does the concept of non-destructive testing cover also visual examination ?
Origin of the question : Question from Finland dated 1998.11.12, comments from France 1998.11.25, CLAP 35,
comments from users by fax 1998-12-09
Proposed amendment discussed by WPG on 2002.06.18, to be confirmed
Guideline 6/8 What are the appropriate harmonized standards in Annex I, section 3.1.2, last
paragraph, which set out the examinations and tests for the approval of permanent
joining procedures and personnel ?
Origin of the question : Finland August 2000

Accepted by WPG 2000.10.02, reworded on 2001.02.21
Guideline 6/9 Does the Pressure Equipment Directive require accreditation for the
manufacturers testing laboratory that carries out non-destructive tests (NDT) or
destructive tests (DT) of pressure equipment or of parts intended as pressure
bearing parts of pressure equipment?
Origin of the question : Finland February 2001
Guideline 6/10 If a manufacturer has a procedure for permanent joining approved by a notified
body or other recognized third-party organization at one site (location), may that
manufacturer use the same procedure at other sites for similar applications?
Origin of the question : Users November 2000, Comments from Finland in November 2000? Comments from
Finland and Users in November 2001

Guideline 6/11 In the absence of harmonized standards, what approach is to be followed for the
approval of permanent joining procedures ?
Origin of the question : Question derived from 6/6. CLAP form 147 submitted in December 2001, reworded by
WPG on 2002.01.16
Guideline 6/12 In the context of approval of welding procedures and personnel, what is meant by; the
third party must perform examinations and tests as set out in the appropriate
harmonised standards or equivalent examinations and tests.
Origin of the question : NBF, February 2002, reworded by WPG on 2002.03.14, combined with content of New-
45a draft December 2001
Input from NBF July 2003 (TRG 0002)
Changes by cabf Accepted by WPG on 2013-04-25
Guideline 6/13 For pressure equipment in categories III and IV, can Non-Destructive Testing personnel
holding qualifications other than those satisfying criteria of the harmonised standards
(e.g. EN 473:2000 General principles for qualification and certification of NDT
personnel) be approved by Recognised Third Party Organisations (RTPO) notified by a
member state under 97/23/EC Article 13 clause 1?
Origin of the question : NBF TRG 0017, December 2003

Accepted by WPG on 2003.12.17 Denmark to confirm the acceptance of the Note
Comments from NBF 2 February 2004
Guideline 6/14 Does any welding operation on a pressure bearing component have to require a
qualification of the welding procedures and of the welders/welding operators ?
Origin of the question : New-139 (CLAP 241)
Comments from Finland, August 04
Referred back to WPG
Comments from France, Sweden and NBF
Accepted by WPG on 2004.12-16
Guideline 6/15 Where approval of operating procedures for permanent joining is required by the PED
and the approval is granted on the basis of a document other than a harmonized
standard, should this approval explicitly mention the PED?
Origin of the question : New 198 FR , first discussion in WPG 2012-04-24-25

Guideline 6/16 Do the essential safety requirements apply to temporary components used by the
equipment manufacturer either during the manufacturing or for the proof test of a
pressure equipment?
Origin of the question : New 212 FR


Guideline 6/17 Is the manufacturer allowed to replace non permanent joining components (bolts, studs,
nuts, washers, gaskets) at the end of the proof test without
carrying out a new proof test?
Origin of the question : New 213 FR

Guideline 6/18 Must a notified body or recognised third party be involved in approval of re-validation
(prolongation of approval) of permanent joining personnel?
Origin of the question : new 217 - CABF

Referred back to WPG in WGP of 2014-03-20
Updated version adopted in WPG of 2014-07-01
But not accepted in WGP 2015-03-11 (objection by EC, DE, NL)
Guideline 6/19 The Essential Safety Requirements define in Annex I chapter 3.1.2 that the properties of
welded joints shall meet the minimum properties specified for the materials
to be joined unless other relevant property values are specifically taken
into account by the design process.
Do these requirements apply also for impact property values?
Origin of the question : new 221 - CABF

7 Interpretation of the essential safety requirements on materials
Guideline 7/1 : What is to be understood by harmonised standard as referred to in annex I, section

4.2.b ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 14, ORGALIME 14, Q2 from Denmark (1997-10-02), accepted by WPG on
1998.10.12
Revision accepted by WGP on 2000.03.24, reservation from Denmark
New draft accepted by WPG on 2000.08.24, reworded on 2001.02.21
Guideline 7/2: What is a competent body for the certification of the quality (assurance) systems of
material manufacturers ?
Origin of the question : Q6 from Denmark (1997-10-02), redrafted by UK and accepted by WPG on 1998/10/12
Proposed revised guideline by Forum of Notified bodies sent on 16 September 1999,
discussed on 26 October 1999, not accepted.
NEW 140 (CLAP 242)
Discussed by WPG on 2004.02.25 and 2004-06-15
New-182, France November 2005

Guideline 7/3 : A notified body is in the process of giving a European approval for materials. In article
11.2 an information process with delays is given. Having sent out the information, the
notified body must wait for comments. How long must the notified body wait ?
Origin of the question : Q 10 from Finland (1997-09-12) redrafted in August 98, accepted by WPG on
1998.11.26.
Guideline 7/4 What are the detailed requirements for identification, conformity assessment and
traceability of the materials for the main pressure bearing parts ?
SPV 98/026
New wording proposed by WGP on 1999.02.26 Comments from Peter Rutter dated
15 March 1999 Discussed again on 1999.06.10 Redrafted version 16 June 1999
proposed by Dr Gerlach, discussed on 1999-07-15, waiting for new input from France
Combined with New 78 proposed by Denmark, new wording issued by WPG on
2002.03.13
New 188, Denmark, September 06
7/4 amended accepted by WPG on 2006-10-18
Guideline 7/5 Annex I, 4.3 of the PED requires that the equipment manufacturer must take
appropriate measures to ensure that the material used conforms with the required
specification. In particular documentation prepared by the material manufacturer
affirming compliance with a specification must be obtained for all materials.
How can these requirements be applied correctly in terms of :
- required inspection document
- intervention at the material manufacturer ?.
SPV 98/027. New wording accepted by WGP on 1999.02.26 Comments from Peter
Rutter dated 15 March 1999, discussed on 1999.10.06
E Haynes comments February 2005, NBF proposal March 2005
Revision issued by WPG on 2005-03-15. To be submitted to NBF, and confirmed at the
next WPG.
TRG 0061rev0, March 2007
Accepted by WPG on 2007-03-27 (with proposed withdrawal of 7/20)
Guideline 7/6 The 2nd paragraph of 4.3 of annex I gives requirements for the main pressure-bearing
parts.How are they defined?
Origin of the question : Question arisen from discussion of WPG 7/5 nf, are bolts and nuts main pressure-
bearing parts ? CLAP 84. Discussed again on 17 February 2000, transferred to the
Forum of Notified bodies, proposal from NBF on 2000.10.04
Guideline 7/7 To what apply the terms having undergone a specific assessment for materials of third
of 4.3 of annex I ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 86 Discussed on 1999.06.11, item discussed by the Council group of 30
October 1995
Accepted by WPG on 1999.07.15, corrected 1 Septembre 1999

Guideline 7/8 What are the certificates required for bolting parts ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 88, discussed on 1999-07-16, transferred to the Forum of Notified bodies
Proposal received as Annex 4 to the minutes of February meeting. To be further
discussed, new input expected from France, discussed on 2000.08.25, comments from
Eddy Crooks
Guideline 7/9 Can a material manufactured according to a standard or another publicly available
specification for which an EAM is available, but for which the inspection document only
refers to the standard or the specification on which the EAM has been based, be used
for pressure equipment manufactured under the PED ?
Origin of the question : France, discussed on 1999-09-03, new wording to be issued by France
Guideline 7/10 What are the requirements for the documentation and traceability of welding
consumables :
- Inspection documents
- Suitable procedures for traceability?
Origin of the question : Finland, May 2002
Guideline 7/11 Do the essential safety requirements of annex I apply to pressure equipment
manufactured from plastic, GRP and other non metallic materials ?
Origin of the question : Q A.4 of M. CROOKS version 5, MARCOGAZ 13

Guideline 7/12 Shall welding consumables and other joining materials comply with harmonised
standards, European approvals of materials or particular material appraisal ?.
Origin of the question : CLAP 48, ORGALIME 51, MARCOGAZ 12

Accepted by WGP on 2014.03.20 (editorial change)
Guideline 7/13 What is meant by Where appropriate, in the context of section 4.1a when it refers to the
quantitative values of section 7.5?
Origin of the question : New-66 and part of New-90

Guideline 7/14 What does the exclusion of fine-grained steel in the first dash of section 7.1.2 of Annex
I of the directive mean ?
Origin of the question : France

Guideline 7/15 Annex I, section 4.2, first indent authorises the use of materials which comply with
harmonised standard.
Is this route still valid for a material which have characteristics higher (better) than, or
complementary to those included in the harmonized standard ?

Origin of the question : WGP meeting April 2001
Accepted in principle by WGP on 2001.04.03, wording reviewed by WPG on
2001.04.24
Guideline 7/16 The Directive 97/23/CE considers the case of a material manufacturer who has an
appropriate quality-assurance system, certified by a competent body established within
the Community and having undergone a specific assessment for materials. How
should this requirement be understood in practice ?

Proposed amendment by UK, Feb. 2004. Discussed by WPG on 2004-06-16, withdrawn
by UK. Proposed amendment submitted by EC November 04. Discussed by WPG on
2004-12-16. New input expected from EC
2005-06-28
New-181, France November 2005-12-08
Editorial change in WPG 2012-09-12

Guideline 7/17 What approach can be used to decide if a steel grade selected for a pressurized part
requires specific impact properties ?
Origin of the question : NBF April 2001, revised version issued by WPG on 24 April 2001
Reviewed version by WPG on 2001 May 16
New-113,EC
CABF input Nov 05 (PED/SPV N 05/067) ; discussed by WPG on 2006-07-12 ; further
improvement expected from Peter Hanmore before finalisation. Discussed again by
WPG on 2006-11-22 ; clarification expected from TRG before implementation into
revision of 7/17
Accepted by WPG on 2007-01-30 (rediscussed by WPG on 2007-03-27, no change)
Swedish comments 17-04-2007
Potential Swedish reservation to be substantiated
Guideline 7/18 Do the essential safety requirements on materials specified in Annex I section 4.1 and
section 7.5 apply to the base material or to the pressure equipment ?
Origin of the question : WPG

Guideline 7/19 Are components, for example dished ends, bolts, flanges, welded tubes etc, which are
placed on the market as such to be considered as materials?

Origin of the question : WPG, derived from CLAP 114 and New-35
Comments from Finland on 2001.09.19
Discussed by WPG on 2001.11.22, and 2001.12.18. Revised wording still to be
discussed
Comments from ECISS, 16 February 2004
Discussed by WPG on 2004.02.25. Legal advice to be requested whether
manufacturing requirements may apply to material. Proposed guideline to be submitted
by France.
Accepted by WPG on 2004-04-15, reservation from Sweden
New 159, Denmark November 04
Guideline 7/20 Does a 3.1B or 3.1C certificate alone meet the requirement of Annex I section 4.3 ?

Accepted by WGP on 2002.02.27, editorial correction by WPG on 2002.03.14
Proposed addition to 7/20, coming from EC proposal New-81
Withdrawal proposed by WPG on 2007-03-27 (merge with 7/5)
Withdrawal confirmed by WGP on 2007-04-18
Guideline 7/21 May a notified body perform a particular material appraisal (PMA) at the request of a
material manufacturer ?
Origin of the question : EC, September 2001. New wording issued by WPG on 2002.01.16
TRG0056, June 2006. Discussed by WPG July 2006
Accepted by WPG on 2006-10-18 as proposed 7/26
Discussed by WGP on 2006-11-21, to be combined with 7/21
Swedish editorial comments on 2007-04-17
Editorial amendment by WPG on 2010-09-21 and WPM on 2010-10-05
Guideline 7/22 What is meant by the following two terms:

Other values, and other criteria, in the context of Clause 7.5 ?
Origin of the question : Users, June 2002 and December 2002. Partially covered by 7/13.
New proposal from Users for remaining text, Feb 03
Wording by WPG on 19 Feb 03
Guideline 7/23 With which requirements of Annex I section 4 does the material used for a gasket have
to comply?
Origin of the question : New-102, France, September 2002

Guideline 7/24 Annex I, 4.3 of the PED requires that the material manufacturer must prepare
documentation affirming compliance with the specification (harmonised standard, EAM
or PMA) required by the equipment manufacturer.
Does this requirement mean that material properties used in the design of the pressure
equipment must be based on those affirmed (guaranteed) by the material
manufacturer?
Origin of the question : New-126, Denmark, March 2003
New-141: Proposal from ORGALIME and EC to add explanative notes, December 2003
Guideline of 2003-11-03 editorially amended by WPG on 2003-12-17, confirmed by
WGP on 2004.03.17
Guideline 7/25 How shall welded tubes be considered for the application of the Pressure Equipment
Directive (PED)?
Origin of the question : New-145 (France, April 2004)
Accepted by WPG on 2004.04.15, reservation from Sweden
Swedish comments, September 04
Comments from NBF, March 05. Discussed by WPG on 2005-03-16 : no change
Guideline 7/26 What type of material may follow the European Approval for Materials (EAM) route?
Origin of the question : Accepted by WPM on 2010-10-05

Guideline 7/27 When an equipment manufacturer receives a certificate type 3.1 according to EN
10204:2004 by the material manufacturer, in pursuance of the third paragraph of
section 4.3 of Annex I , what evidence of compliance with these requirements shall be
recorded in the technical documentation?
Origin of the question : NEW 205 - FR

Accepted by WPG on 2013-1-17 (initially on 2012-4-25)
Guideline 7/28 How to apply Annex 1, section 7.5 on the bending rupture energy measured on an ISO
V test piece for base materials whose, due to its thickness, the collection of a test piece
of section 10 x 10 mm is not possible?
Origin of the question : NEW 211 - FR

Guideline 7/29 Based on data contained in a certificate issued by a material manufacturer (EN
10204:2004 3.1-certificate) material has been supplied in accordance with a material
specification.
May a pressure equipment manufacturer perform additional mechanical or non-
destructive testing or have them performed to affirm that the material meets all the
requirements specified by the equipment manufacturer?
Origin of the question: New 216

Not accepted in WGP 2014-03-20, sent back to WPG
Modified and accepted in WPG of 28-11-2014
WGP proposes further changes in meeting of 11-3-2015, not accepted , subject to
written procedure WGP

Guideline 7/30 A manufacturer produces material only to a chemical analysis without mechanical
testing and without affirmation of compliance to a material specification and/or grade.
An entity intends to purchase the material and affirm compliance to a material

specification by performing the mechanical tests as required by that material
specification. There will be no further processing, other than cutting to size. Is this
procedure acceptable and may this material be used in pressure equipment under the
PED?
Origin of the question: Accepted by WPG on 2013-09-18

Question : no WPG What is common practice with and understanding of the terms standards,
specifications, order and certification requirements?
Origin of the question : WPM, 2004-03-05

Discussed by WPG on 2004-04-16. Decision not to issue a guideline, but to include the
content in the guiding principles for PMA.
Question : no WPG If an EAM is based on a standard or another publicly available specification for a
material which is recognised as being safe before 29 November 1999, but for which
some requirements (e.g. chemical or mechanical properties) in the EAM are more
restrictive than the standard or the specification, is it possible for a pressure equipment
manufacturer to use a material with an inspection document referring only to the
standard or the specification on which the EAM is based?
Origin of the question : France, discussed on 1999-09-03, proposal by WPG on 1999-09-03.

New wording on 1999.10.26, UK proposal discussed on 17 February. To be further
considered, need examples. Deleted by WPG on 2002.01.16
Question : no WPG Do the requirements of annex I 4.2b) apply to all materials used for a pressure
equipment ?
Origin of the question : Q A.3 of M. CROOKS version 5. Deleted by WPG on 2002.01.16
8 Interpretation of the other essential safety requirements
Guideline 8/1: In the linguistic versions of the directive the symbol for the unit for volume (litre) is not
consistent (big L, small l). Which symbol should be used ?
Origin of the question : Forum of NB, accepted by WPG on 1998.10.12

Guideline 8/2 Final assessment (Annex I, section 3.2.2) requires that pressure equipment must
include a test for pressure containment at a pressure at least equal, where appropriate,
to the value laid down in section 7.4. This section only refers to pressure vessels. Does
this mean that 7.4 does not apply to piping, and pressure and safety accessories ?
Origin of the question : Question Q7 from M CROOKS dated 1998.11.20 Guideline proposed by Helmut Bayer
on 1998.12.18
Accepted by WPG on 1999-07-16, corrected 1 September 1999
Guideline 8/3 What safety information must be given to he user in relation to Annex I points 3.3 and
3.4 ?

SPV 98/016, question rephrased by WPG on 1998.11.27, comments from users by fax
1999.02.24, discussed on 1999-07-16, 1999-09-02, new proposal from users dated 17
September 1999, discussed on 26 October 1999, new wording from users on
2000.02.03, revised proposal from UK on 2000.02.15
Accepted by WGP on 2000.06.30, with amendment
Revised and
Guideline 8/4 What shall be the extent of the risk analysis specified in the third preliminary
observation of annex I?
How shall it be documented ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 61, Q5 from Denmark (1997-10-02), transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB,
proposal NBF-SPV 98/020, reworded by WPG on 1999-07-16
Guideline 8/5 Does the strength of the grounding (concrete plates, tightened gravel, piling, etc),
where the pressure equipment is erected, belong to the details to be considered under
PED ?
Origin of the question : Finland 11 May 1999

Accepted by WGP on 1999.11.08, correction of reference to guideline 8/3 on
2001.02.20
Guideline 8/6 The 1st paragraph explicitly provides for exceptions to the general rules specified
subsequently. How should the achievement of an equivalent overall level of safety in
such a case be verified?
Origin of the question : Proposal from the Commission on 2000.02.11
New wording on 2000.05.04, some examples to be added, discussed on 2000.08.25,
comments from UK.
Guideline 8/7 What conditions should be considered to determine the maximum allowable pressure
PS of an equipment?
Question 10/G from NBF, discussed on 2004-01-19 and 2004-06-15
Guideline 8/8 What does product group mean?
Origin of the question : CLAP 96, UK proposal in September 2000

Guideline 8/9 Must an individual serial number always be provided, even if the items of pressure
equipment are manufactured in batches or series?
Accepted by WPG on 2001.11 22

Guideline 8/10 Does the directive require a specific format for marking the year of manufacture of
pressure cookers?
Origin of the question : Germany, 02 April 2001
Discussed by WPG on 2001.11.22
Guideline 8/11 For products built according to a harmonized standard, is the manufacturer still obliged
to perform the hazard analysis required by Annex I preliminary observation 3 of the
PED?
Origin of the question : EC, March 2002
Guideline 8/12 Which are the essential maximum/minimum allowable limits to be marked according to
Annex I section 3.3 a) of Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) ?
Origin of the question : France, June 2002. New wording issued by WPG on 2002.09.18
Comments from the CEN consultant 11 February 2004. Discussed by WPG on
2004.02.25 : no change.
Proposed revision in May 2008 (New-193).
Accepted by WGP on : 2015-03-11
Guideline 8/13 Which provisions are the to be followed for the CE marking of small pressure
accessories and safety accessories, the dimensions of which do not allow fulfilment of
the requirements of :
- annex I, section 3.3.a) about the minimum information required,
- annex VI about the minimum size of the CE marking of 5 mm.?
Origin of the question : TRG 10/3
Editorially amended by WGP on 2005-06-28
Guideline 8/14 Is it possible to undertake statistical proof testing of series-produced safety valves?
Origin of the question : New-18 : UK, May 2003

Discussed by WPG on 2004.10.06 following a request from NBF. Proposed revision
issued on 2004.10.06. Comments by France, Sweden
Guideline 8/15 How should the ESRs (essential safety requirements) of Annex I be interpreted in
regard of boilers for generating steam or superheated water intended for operation
without continuous supervision?
Origin of the question : Derived from the discussion of draft guideline 9/20. Draft issued by WPG on
2003.06.19. Input from France expected. French proposal, July 2003. Discussed by
WPG on 4 Sep 03. Will be reviewed after agreement of 9/20 by WGP.
Austria input November 2003
Comments from Denmark, December 03
Comments from Sweden, January 2004
Comments from Sweden and Germany ,February 2004

Guideline 8/16 If the hydrostatic pressure test required by Annex I section 3.2.2 is replaced by a
pneumatic pressure test because filling with water is harmful or impractical, what value
has to be used for the pressure test?
Origin of the question : New 153 - EC, August 04
Comments from France, Sweden
Guideline 8/17 Is it possible to provide the marking and labelling required by Annex I section 3.3 on a
sticker?
Origin of the question : NEW 154 - EC, August 04
Draft 8/18 What shall be the information about pressure and temperature to be marked on bottles
for breathing apparatus according to PED?
Origin of the question : NEW 193 and proposed revision of 8/12
Editorial update submitted by ECMA
Accepted by WPG on : 2014-07-01
Accepted by WGP on : 2015-03-11
Draft 8/19 What is the marking information to be put on the constituent parts of pressure
equipment intended for domestic use?
Question : No WPG How to interpret in practice 7.4 of annex I dealing the hydrostatic test pressure : "For
pressure vessels, the hydrostatic test pressure referred to in 3.2.2 must be not less
than :
- that corresponding to the maximum loading to which the pressure equipment may be
subject in service taking into account its maximum allowable pressure and its
maximum allowable temperature, multiplied by the coefficient 1,25
or
- the maximum allowable pressure multiplied by the coefficient 1,43, whichever is the
greater" ?
SPV 98/028
No guideline needed
Question no WPG It is said in the introduction of 7 of annex I that "where they (specific quantitative
requirements) are not applied, the manufacturer must demonstrate that appropriate
measures have been taken to achieve an equivalent overall level of safety."
Does this mean that the standards can give different values with a justification?
Origin of the question : CLAP 10, ORGALIME 10, comments from Finland by fax dated 1998-08-19
Part of the answer included in WPG 8/6 No specific guideline required
9 Miscellaneous
Guideline 9/1 : What is to be understood by sound engineering practice ?
Origin of the question : Q4 from Denmark (1997-10-02), accepted by WPG on 1998.09.18


Guideline 9/2 What does "materials recognised as being safe to use before 29 November 1999" in
Article 11, first paragraph mean ?
Origin of the question : Combined with answer 9/x. Accepted by WPG on 1999.06.10
Guideline 9/3 Is the approval of a material manufacturer part of the EAM procedure for "a material
recognised as being safe to use before 29 November 1999" ?
Origin of the question : Accepted by WPG on 1999.02.26, corrected on 1999.10.25

Accepted by WGP on 1999.11.08 (the version accepted is the version which includes
the word such in the 1st line of the answer)
Guideline 9/4 May a EAM for "a material recognised as being safe to use before 29 November 1999
be restricted to one or more material manufacturers ?
Origin of the question : Proposal from WPG on 1999.02.26, waiting advice from legal services of the
Commission
Avvepted by WGP on 2000.06.29
Guideline 9/5 In which conditions is it possible to use another document than an harmonized standard
(professional code or private technical document) for the design and manufacturing of a
pressure equipment conform to the Pressure Equipment Directive ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 59 Discussed on 1999.06.10, in combination with Eddy Crooks question F8,
amended version drafted
Accepted by WPG on 1999-07-15, corrected 1999-09-02
Guideline 9/6 Is it possible to use partially one or more harmonized standards, codes or specifications
to design and manufacture a pressure equipment conform to the Pressure Equipment
Directive ?

Comments from Sweden, December 04, moved to 10/6
Guideline 9/7 Under what circumstances shall safety accessories not bear the CE marking according
to the PED
Origin of the question : CLAP 205, France September 2002

Re-discussed by WPG on 2002.12.04 due to new-110. Postponed
Guideline 9/8 Conformity with the PED is required for some piping per Article 3.1.3, which are part of
an industrial installation. May all such piping for a given installation be covered by a
single CE marking ?
Origin of the question : ECUI 1998.11.24


Guideline 9/9 A pressure equipment falls in the scope of sound engineering practice, and there exists
a EN product standard for this type of a pressure equipment. Does this mean that the
EN standard explains the meaning of the sound engineering practice
Origin of the question : Proposal from Finland dated 21 October 1999, discussed on 1999.10.26
Guideline 9/10 When performing an EC type examination or an EC design-examination by using

particular appraisals for materials, are these appraisals applicable to all items of
pressure equipment covered by this examination ?
Origin of the question : Proposal from Austria 199.12.06

Accepted by WGP on 2000.06.29, with editorial corrections
Guideline 9/11 When performing a particular appraisal for materials recognized as being safe to use
before 29.11.1999, shall the existing data for these materials be taken into account
when assessing the suitability of this material?
Origin of the question : Proposal from Austria 199.12.06

Addition on the basis on New 40 (NBF, January 2001)
Revised version accepted by WPG on 2001.11.21
Guideline 9/12 Do the requirements of Annex 1.4 regarding materials also apply to pressure equipment
described in Article 3.3 (Sound engineering practice) ?
Origin of the question : Proposal from the Commission 2000.02.17

Amendment by WPG on 2010-09-12 and by WPM on 2010-10-05
Guideline 9/13 What are the formal requirements of a particular material appraisal (PMA)?
Origin of the question : Proposal from the Commission 2000.02.17

Modification discussed in WPG 12/9/2012 about responsibility pressure equipment
manufacturer
Guideline 9/14 May the particular appraisal (referred in the 3 rd indent of 4.2b of Annex I) be carried out
by a user inspectorate as part of the conformity assessment of pressure equipment
based on modules A1, C1, F or G ?
Accepted by WGP on 2000.11.08, editorially amended by WPG on 2001.01.10
Editorial change by WPG on 25-4-2013

Guideline 9/15 A user places an order for Pressure Equipment on a manufacturer in Member State 'A',
where the Member State has chosen not to implement Article 14; but the Pressure
Equipment is intended to be put into service as part of an industrial installation in
Member State 'B', where Article 14 is implemented. May Member State 'A' refuse to
allow the user's inspectorate, which has been authorized according to Art. 14 in another
Member State, to operate on its territory, thus preventing the User Inspectorate from
undertaking conformity assessment of the Pressure Equipment?
Origin of the question : Proposal from users sent on 2000.02.03

Accepted by WGP on 2001.10.19 (use of the word "implement" in the question to be
confirmed by the Commission within 4 weeks)
Guideline 9/16 Must a CE-marked item of pressure equipment, or an assembly, be supplied with an EC
declaration of conformity, when it is placed on the market ?
Origin of the question : Question derived by WGP on 2000.06.30, when discussing guideline 8/3, on the issue
of declaration of conformity accompanying, or not, any item of pressure equipment
Proposals from UK and Finland
Discussed by WGP on 2000.11.08, legal advice from the Commission on 2001.02.16,
addition of a new sentence proposed by WPG on 2001.04.23, to be confirmed by legal
services
Accepted in principle by WGP on 2001.06.27
Guideline 9/17 How shall a manufacturer established outside the European Economic Area (EEA) fulfil
the requirement of the sound engineering practice (SEP) of a Member State ?
Origin of the question : Finland November 2000, comments from the Commission on December 2000
Guideline 9/18 Article 4.1 of PED provides for free placing on the market or putting into service of CE-
marked pressure equipment. Under what circumstances can the application of national
regulations (e.g. by public authorities or private authorised bodies) on periodic testing
constitute a barrier to trade?
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, March 2002, Austrian Comments April 2002, Common Users-ORGALIME
Revision In September 2002. Discussed On 2002.09.19 By WPG, Postponed. New
Wording By Users, November 2002. New Wording Issued By WPG On 2002.12.04.
New Wording Issued By WPG On 2003.02.19
Input From France, February 2003. Input from ORGALIME, 21 March 2003
Guideline 9/19 What information should be supplied with an item of pressure equipment, or an
assembly, which falls under article 3, paragraph 3 (sound engineering practice, SEP)
when it is placed on the market, to indicate that it complies with the provisions of article
3, paragraph 3 ?
Origin of the question : Accepted by WPG on 2001.05.16

Guideline 9/20 Are national requirements additional to PED for the design, conformity assessment and
installation of safety systems of CE-marked boilers for generating steam or
superheated water intended for operation without continuous supervision permissible?

Origin of the question : New-117, EC, Feb 2003, Austrian comments Feb 2003
Input from France, March 2003
Discussed by WGP on 2003.04.28, referred back to WPG. Input from Austria and from
the Commission May 2003
Alternative question issued on 2003.05.24. Information on the content of EN 12952 and
12953 in June 2003.
Accepted by WGP on 2003-11-03, reservation from Sweden. Request to WPG to
progress draft guideline 8/15 as a first priority. Reservation from Sweden cancelled on
2004-03-18 with the approval of guideline 8/15
Guideline 9/21 Article 4 of the Pressure Equipment Directive allows Member States to require the
information for pressure equipment described in Annex 1 sections 3.3 and 3.4 to be
provided in the language of the country in which the equipment or assembly reaches
the final user. If so required, does this impose the task of translating on the
manufacturer?
Origin of the question : New-109 : ORGALIME, November 2002, Users comments, November 2002
Discussed by WPG on 2003.02.19. Proposal to split into 2 questions : one for
equipment specifically manufactured for a defined user (new 109a issued at the
meeting) and the other for equipment which reaches the final user via distribution,
integration into assembly etc (horizontal question, legal advice needed)
Survey from ORGALIME about national transpositions, March 2003
Guideline 9/22 In which language must the EC declaration of conformity be written ?
Origin of the question : New-132, CLAP 227

Accepted by WGP on 2004-03-18, reservation from Belgium
Guideline 9/23 What aspects must not be assessed during inspections under national legislation before
putting into service products falling in the scope of the PED?
Origin of the question : New-137, EC, November 03, Users comments November 03, Denmark comments
December 03, discussed by WPG on 2003.12.17, French comments January 2004.
Accepted by WPG on 2004-01-20, with provisional reservations from Denmark and
France.
Comments from France and users February 2004
Guideline 9/24 What additional requirements for the design, manufacture and assessment of pressure
equipment and assemblies covered by PED containing explosive/inflammable fluids
are allowed in national regulations on top of the requirements of the PED?
Origin of the question : New-138, EC, November 03. Discussed by WPG on 2004.01.20
Draft issued by WPG on 2004.02.25 to be submitted to WGP
Question : No WPG Must a material recognised as being safe for use before 29 November 1999 fulfill the
essential safety requirements on Annex I ?
Origin of the question : Germany 19.3.99. Combined with question 9/2 on 1999.06.10.
Question : No WPG May a European approval for material be restricted to special equipment or special
manufacturing procedures, if they are necessary for generating the material
properties ?

Origin of the question : Germany 13.4.99 Legal opinion to be obtained on this subject.
No guideline for the time being, wait possible input
Question : No WPG May a European approval for material be issued and be restricted to a particular
material manufacturer if during production of this material a special know-how of the
materail manufacturer is necessary ?
Origin of the question : Germany 13.4.99 Legal opinion to be obtained on this subject.
No guideline for the time being, wait possible input
Question No WPG Can the national regulations dealing with in service inspection require some
manufacturing requirements in addition to those required by the directive (for example
dimension of access opening) ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 64, discussed on 1999-07-16

WPG decided on 1999-09-02 : no guideline needed
10 Horizontal questions
Guideline 10/1 Must the directive be applied to used pressure equipment imported from outside the
European Economic Area ?
Origin of the question : Q3 from Finland (1997-09-12)

Accepted by WGP on 1999-01-28 (confirmed by WPG on 2000.08.25)
Guideline 10/2 Must the directive be applied to used pressure equipment imported from another
country of the European Economic Area ?

Accepted by WGP on 1999-01-28, editorial changes on 2000.05.05, confirmed by
WPG on 2000.08.25
Comments from France, February 05
2005-06-28
Guideline 10/3 Article 20, section 3 states that the transition period extends up to and includes 29 May
2002. If a manufacturer intends to place pressure equipment or assemblies on the
market according to non PED national Regulations during the transition period, what
conditions must be met?
Origin of the question : Proposal from the Commission on 2000.02.11, CLAP 62, UK proposal August 2000
Guideline 10/4 When an assembly is built for use in his own installation not by the user itself but by a
subsidiary or affiliated company of the (future) user, is such assembly covered by the
PED?
Origin of the question : Commission, February 2001

Guideline 10/5 Harmonized standards frequently use normative references to other EN and non-EN
standards. Do these referenced standards also have presumption of conformity to the
ESRs, even if they are not harmonized ?
Origin of the question : Commission, May 2001, France proposal, May 2001, WPG discussion 2001-05-17
Minor addition proposed by the Commission, accepted in principle by WPG on
2001.09.27

WPG 10/6 What is the information to be given in the Declaration of Conformity in order to comply
with indents 8 and 9 of Annex VII?
Origin of the question : Swedish comments on guideline 9/6, December 04

ORGALIME comments on 2005-06-27, referred back to WPG
Guideline 10/7 In Annex III, for modules D,D1, E, E1, H and H1, specific documentation is required to
be retained for a period of 10 years after the last date of manufacture
The text specifically requires that documentation concerning the quality system be
retained. Does this also include quality records such as material certificates, test
reports etc?
Origin of the question : New-104, UK, October 2002

Guideline 10/8 What is the information to be given in the Declaration of Conformity of assemblies in
order to comply with the 4th indent of Annex VII?
Origin of the question : New-168 NBF, March 05
ORGALIME comments on 2005-06-27
Question : no WPG Article 10 3 provides a derogation for individual pressure equipment items and
assemblies used in the interests of experimentation? What does this derogation mean ?
Origin of the question : ORGALIME 158

New wording issued by WPG on 2002.11.05, UK comments November 2002
Deleted by WGP on 2003.01.27 : on the ped website, in the section devoted to
Member states, information about national implementation of Article 10 3 will be
included.
Question :no WPG A worn-out steam drum of a power boiler is replaced by a new one. Must the new steam
drum or the final construction (assembly) be marked with a CE marking ?
Origin of the question : Q5 from Finland (1997-09-12) redrafted

Accepted by WGP on 1999-01-28 (as guideline 10/6)
Reviewed by WPG on 2000.02.17
No longer needed, covered by guideline 1/3
Question :no WPG Does the preamble 25 and the article 20.3 allow the approval of a new type of pressure
equipment according to the old national legislation ? The type approval would take
place in the year 2001 and the old national legislation refers to the national pressure
equipment legislation in force at 28 November 1999.

No longer needed, included in the Blue guide
Question :no WPG What must the national Pressure Equipment Authority do with respect to a new
pressure equipment placed on the market (after 29 May 2002), when this should carry
the CE marking but it does not ?

No longer needed, included in the Blue guide

Question :no WPG Is it allowed for Member State to appoint bodies to carry out part of the directive ?
Origin of the question : Q1 from Netherlands (1997-09-12)

Accepted by WGP on 1999-01-28, editorial change on 2000.02.17
No longer needed, horizontal question
Question :No WPG Who is responsible for the EC marking ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 6, ORGALIME 38, comments from Finland by fax dated 1998-08-19
Not needed, included in the Blue guide
Question :No WPG When a product is covered by more than one directives, is it possible to have more
than one notified bodies?
If yes, what are their respective field of intervention?
Origin of the question : CLAP 7, comments from Finland by fax dated 1998-08-19
Question :no WPG Is it possible to affix the EC marking on an equipment not covered by a directive as a
quality mark?

Question : no WPG Does the directive only apply to the new equipments ?

Question : no WPG Is it possible to apply the directive and to affix the CE marking before the beginning of
the transitional period ?

No longer needed
Question : no WPG May an inspection body act simultaneously for the affixing of the CE mark and for the
purchaser in a voluntary field ?
Origin of the question : CLAP 47, ORGALIME 46, transferred by the WPG to the Forum of NB, proposal of
NBF-SPV, 10th meeting, item 8.2.5, 06.09.1999 (Annex 7 to the minutes)
Question :no WPG In annex III, the conditions of affixing the identification of the notified body are
presented in a different manner in function of the modules.
How to translate it materially ?
SPV 98/025
Not needed
Question :no WPG A manufacturer uses the appeals procedure of a module against a NB in case where
the body has been notified by another country, as can be the case with multinational
inspection organisations. Should the appealing be considered in the country of the
manufacturer or in the country of notifier ?
Origin of the question : Finland 3 June 1999

Transferred to the Commission

Question No WPG Is a notified body allowed to accept a pressure equipment if some NDT has been
carried by a competent person employed by the same NB ?
Origin of the question : Question from Finland on 1999.12.09. Discussed by WPG on 1999.12.15, more general
wording (including design for instance) to be proposed by Finland, revised version from
Finland on 1999.12.16, comments from NB on 1999.12.21
Deleted on 2000.10.02, dealt with in the Blue guide
Question : no WPG Who shall assume the responsibility of manufacturer for PED when an equipment is
manufactured by a supplier under precise specification from the user ?

Not needed, included in Blue guide
New questions
NEW 01 moved to 1/26 Pressure vessels vs machinery directive
Origin of the question : Sweden
NEW 02 moved to 2/11 Using higher modules
Origin of the question : UK
NEW 03 moved to 2/14 Portable extinguishers category
NEW 04 moved to 8/7 Maximum allowable pressure vs temporary overpressure
Origin of the question : France CLAP 94
NEW 05 moved to 8/8 Marking of product group
NEW 06 moved to 9/14 Particular material appraisal by a user inspectorate
NEW 10 moved to 1/33 TPED vessels used in static installation
Origin of the question : EC-TPED
NEW 12 moved to 3/9 Application of definition to complex assemblies
NEW 14 moved to 2/10 Classification of vessels partially filled with gas and liquid

NEW 15 moved to 2/24 Classification of gaseous mixtures
Origin of the question : UK August 2000, comments from Finland and users on February 2001, amended
version proposed by the Commission on 3 March 2001,ORGALIME comments June
2002, proposal from Finland June 2002
NEW 16 moved to 2/4 Heat exchangers as piping
Origin of the question : Denmark
NEW 17 moved to 3/5 CE marking of boiler for Art 3.2.3 assemblies
NEW 18 deleted Copies of EC type-examination or EC design-examination certificates to other notified

bodies

Deleted on 2000.10.02
NEW 19 moved to 3/10 Essential safety requirements and Art 3.2.3 assemblies
NEW 20 moved to 6/8 Harmonized standards and approval of permanent joining procedures and personnel
NEW 21 deleted Piping and pressure system

Deleted on 2000.10.02
NEW 22 moved to 3/11 Non-PED item forming part of a PED assembly
NEW 23 moved to 2/19 Vessels with several compartments
Origin of the question : France, CLAP 110
NEW 24 moved to 9/14 PMA by user inspectorate
NEW 25 deleted EAM property
NEW 26 deleted Storage capacity along pipelines
Origin of the question : old MARCOGAZ 4, CLAP 67

NEW 27 deleted On board NGV equipment
Origin of the question : MARCOGAZ 7
NEW 28 moved to 7/14 Fine grained steed
Origin of the question : France
NEW 29 moved to 1/34 Classification of slurry tankers
Origin of the question : ORGALIME 86
NEW 30 moved to 9/17 SEP outside EEA
NEW 31 moved to 2/20 Classification of heat transfer oil
NEW 33 deleted Subdivision of assemblies
Origin of the question : UK covered by 3/9 and 3/10
NEW 34 deleted Subdivision of assemblies
Origin of the question : User, included in 3/9 and 3/10
NEW 35 moved to 7/16 Specific assessment of material producers
NEW 36 deleted Rules to establish EAM recognised as being safe to use
NEW 37 deleted to History of safe use for a material
Origin of the question : CLAP 138. No need, covered by the Guiding principles
NEW 38 moved to 6/10 Common joining procedures
Origin of the question : User, November 2000

Comments from Finland in November 2000
NEW 39 deleted EAM and harmonsied standard
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, December 2000, included in 7/15

NEW 40 moved to 9/11 Material properties
Origin of the question : Chairman of NBF, January 2001

Comments from Users, January 2001
NEW 41 deleted Global assessment and assemblies
Origin of the question : UK, January 2001 covered by 3/9 and 3/10
NEW 42 moved to 3/12 Essential requirements for assemblies
NEW 43 moved to 6/9 Accreditation of NDT laboratories
Origin of the question : Finland, February 2001
NEW 44 deleted Assembly formed from two assemblies
Origin of the question : UK, February 2001 covered by 3/9 and 3/10
NEW 45a moved to 6/12 Welding procedure qualification/EN 288-3
Origin of the question : Sweden, February 2001

Discussed by WPG on 2001.11.21 and 2001.12.18
Transferred to the Notified Body Forum
NEW 45b moved to 6/12 Welding procedure qualification/equivalent test and examination
Origin of the question : NBF, February 2002
NEW 46 moved to 8/10 Marking and labeling of pressure cookers
Origin of the question : Germany, 02 April 2001
NEW 47 moved to 5/4 Protection against exceeding allowable limits of portable extinguishers
Origin of the question : Sweden, 12 April 2001, comments from Finland on 2001.05.14
NEW 48 deleted TS for outdoor conditions
Origin of the question : Sweden, April 2001, comments from France April 2001.
The corresponding information to be put on the national section of the PED Website
NEW 49 moved to 7/17 Necessity of impact tests in PMAs
Origin of the question : NBF April 2001
NEW 50 moved to 1/46 Pressure equipment installed on vehicles

NEW 51 deleted Role of manufacturer in a complex assembly
Origin of the question : EC proposal, May 2001
NEW 52 moved to 7/19 Component parts considered as materials ?
Origin of the question : WPG, derived from CLAP 114 and New-35
NEW 53 moved to 10/5 Harmonized standards frequently use normative references to other EN and non-EN
standards. Do these referenced standards also have presumption of conformity to the
ESRs, even if they are not harmonized ?
NEW 54 deleted Work under the responsibility of the users
Origin of the question : Users, revised proposal December 2001, discussed by WPG on 2001.12.19
NEW 55 deleted To what extent can the ASME codes be used to comply with PED ?
Origin of the question : WPG 2001-05-15

To be further investigated with NBF : status of NBF proposal ?
NEW 56 deleted Possible improvement on annex ZA of harmonized standards
Origin of the question : WPG 2001-05-15, reviewed on 2001.08.30

Report to WGP accepted by WPG on 2001.09.27
NEW 57 deleted Manufacture outside EU
Origin of the question : Denmark, July 2001

No need, Blue guide subclause 3.2
NEW 58 moved to 1/24 Aerosols under PED
Origin of the question : Germany, July 2001
NEW 59 moved to 3/13 Assembly with non-PED items
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, June 2001
NEW 60 moved to 8/9 Serial number
NEW 61 moved to 1/35 Gas cartridges for portable extinguishers
NEW 62 deleted Usage of values derived from international tabular standards
Origin of the question : UK, August 2001

NEW 63a moved to 1/36 Pressurised cartridges for fixed fire extinguishers
NEW 63b moved to 1/38 Piping in fire extinguishing systems
Origin of the question : Finland, November 2001. Discussed by WPG on 2001.12.19
NEW 64 deleted Valves for bottle for breathing apparatus
Origin of the question : Finland, 2001.09.06
NEW 65 moved to 7/20 Compliance of the material delivery to the specification
NEW 66 moved to 14 % elongation requirement for aluminium alloys

7/13
NEW 67 moved to 7/21 PMA and particular application
Origin of the question : EC, September 2001
NEW 68 moved to 2/23 Classification of solar panels
Origin of the question : Austria, November 2001
NEW 69 moved to 4/7 Operating instructions
Origin of the question : NBF, November 2001
NEW 70 resolved Standards on fire extinguishers and breathing air bottles
Origin of the question : Eddy Crooks, August 2001

Proposed revision of Guideline 1/33
NEW 71 deleted Allowable stresses
Origin of the question : CLAP 90, September 2001
NEW 72 moved to 2/21 Unstable gases
Origin of the question : ORGALIME 80, December 2001, reworded by WPG on 2001.12.19
NEW 73 moved to 1/39 Applicability of exclusion 3.6 to assemblies
Origin of the question : Denmark, January 2002. Discussed by WPG on 2002.01.16

NEW 74 moved to 1/40 Pressure bearing housing
NEW 75 moved to 1/37 Subsea equipment
Origin of the question : Norway, December 2001
NEW 76 moved to 9/18 CE marking and in-service inspection
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, March 2002, Austrian comments April 2002, Common Users-ORGALIME
revision in September 2002. Discussed on 2002.09.19 by WPG, postponed. New
wording by users, November 2002. New wording issued by WPG on 2002.12.04.
NEW 77 moved to 3/14 Manually fed boilers
Origin of the question : Denmark, March 2002, discussed by WPG on 2002-02-19, new wording issued
NEW 78 moved to 7/4 Traceability
Origin of the question : Denmark, March 2002
NEW 79 solved Particular Material appraisal
Origin of the question : NBF, March 2002, considered by WPG on 2002.12.04, conflicting statements with some
guidelines, especially 7/21. Referred back to NBF. To be treated by WPM
Superseded by Guiding principles for PMAs
NEW 80 solved Publication of harmonized standards in OJEC
Origin of the question : WGP, February 2002. Discussed by WPG on 2002.03.14, input by Eddy Crooks on
NDT and materials standards
New wording issued on 2002-04-10, to be submitted to WGP
Report PE-02-09 accepted by WGP on 2002.05.24, forwarded to CEN,
implementation process to be reviewed at the next meeting;
NEW 81 moved to 7/20 Absence of affirmation of compliance with the specification
NEW 82 deleted Verification of hazard analysis by NB
Origin of the question : EC, March 2002, ORGALIME comments March 2002
NEW 83 moved to 8/11 Hazard analysis and harmonized standards
NEW 84 moved to 3/13 Assembly definition
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, April 2002

NEW 85 moved to 7/10 Documentation and traceability of welding consumable
Origin of the question : Finland, May 2002
NEW 86 deleted Hydrostatic pressure test on an assembly
Origin of the question : PNEUROP, May 2002 (proposed revision of guideline 3/6)
NEW 87 moved to 1/30 Flexible hoses : PED or TPED
Origin of the question : TPED 19, ORGALIME, June 2002, Finnish comments June 2002
NEW 88 moved to 1/20 Measuring system and safety devices
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, June 2002, User comments June
NEW 89 moved to 2/4 Piping heat exchangers
Origin of the question : EC, June 2002 (proposed revision of guideline 2/4), Finnish comments June 2002
NEW 90 moved to 7/22 When and how to apply Annex I.7.5
Origin of the question : Users, June 2002 and December 2002. Partially covered by 7/13.
New proposal from Users for remaining text, Feb 03
NEW 91 moved to 5/3 Is pressure containment an ESR of the PED
Origin of the question : EC, July 2002 - Comments from users August 2002; Discussed by WPG on
2002.12.05, to be reviewed together with 5/3.
NEW 92 moved to 8/12 Essential maximum/minimum allowable limits
Origin of the question : France, June 2002
NEW 93 solved Concerns on standardisation
NEW 94 moved to 1/30 Double marking (CE, Pi) of pressure equipment
NEW 95 deleted Quality assurance accepted by NB

New wording issued by WPG on 2002.09.19. To be submitted to the horizontal services
from EC and to the NBF
Withdrawn (covered by Blue guide 6.4)
NEW 96 moved to 2/25 Classification of a pressure equipment

NEW 97 moved to 5/5 Experimental design method
NEW 98 deleted Equipment for experimentation
NEW 99 moved to High voltage electrical equipment

1/51
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, August 2002. Users comments July 2003 ; German input August 2003.
NEW 100 moved to 1/32 Substations for district heating piping
Origin of the question : Finland, September 2002
NEW 100a moved to 1/41 LPG tankers for fork lifts
NEW 101 moved to 1/42 Discharge piping of pressure safety accessories
NEW 102 moved to 7/23 Tightness material
NEW 103 moved to 9/7 Safety accessories
NEW 104 moved to 10/7 Documentation concerning the quality system
Origin of the question : UK, October 2002
NEW 105 solved NDT and TPO examinations
Origin of the question : France, November 2002

Draft guideline under preparation by NBF (see 6/13)
NEW 106 moved to 3/16 Assembly categorization
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, November 2002
NEW 107 moved to 3/15 Joints in PED assembly
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, November 2002, Finnish comments Feb 2003

NEW 108 moved to 4/9 Requirements for components
NEW 109 moved to 9/21 Translation of instructions for use
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, November 2002, Users comments, November 2002
Discussed by WPG on 2003.02.19. Proposal to split into 2 questions : one for
equipment specifically manufactured for a defined user (new 109a issued at the
meeting) and the other for equipment which reaches the final user via distribution,
integration into assembly etc (horizontal question, legal advice needed)
Survey from ORGALIME about national transpositions, March 2003
NEW 110 solved TPED/PED marking of pressure accessories
Origin of the question : UK, November 2002. Waiting for advice of legal services. Extract from TPED
guidelines in June 2003, New proposal from EC in June 2003
Position from WPG on 2003.06.18 transferred to TPED group
TPED 12 revised after 2003.10.21, discussed by WPG on 2004.01.20. Comments to be
sent to DG Trend. Solved by document PE 07-04 May 07
NEW 111 moved to 1/45 Exclusion 3.5
Origin of the question : Sweden, November 2002
NEW 112 moved to 2/28 Piping classification
Origin of the question : Sweden, November 2002, Finnish comments Feb 2003
NEW 113 moved to 7/17 Revision of guideline 7/17
Origin of the question : EC, November 2002
NEW 114 moved to 2/27 Chemical reaction of 2 or 3 more fluids of group 2
Origin of the question : Belgium, January 2003
NEW 115 deleted Harmonised standards in conflict with ESRs or other provisions
Origin of the question : Belgium, January 2003. Discussed by WPG on 2003.02.19 : no interpretation needed.
EC will check with Belgium the 2 examples of standards given in the proposal.
NEW 116 moved to 1/11 Curing moulds for tyres
Origin of the question : France, Feb 2003 (CLAP 216)
NEW 117 moved to 9/20 Boilers for unattended operation
Origin of the question : EC, Feb 2003, Austrian comments Feb 2003

NEW 118 deleted Wire lines for oil well servicing
Origin of the question : NBF (TRG 1-A), Feb 2003. Discussed by WPG on 2003.02.19, further explanation
expected from NBF
Reviewed by WPG on 2003.03.05. Considered by WPG to be excluded from PED
because primary purpose is to contain well pressure.
To be revised by NBF, or re-submitted to WPG with technical justification
Input from NBF October 04
Discussed again by WPG on 2005-07-05. No need, exclusion 3.9 clear enough
NEW 119 moved to 1/43 Scope of safety accessories
Origin of the question : NBF (TRG 1-B), Feb 2003
NEW 120 moved to 2/26 Grouping of dangerous solids
Origin of the question : NBF (TRG 1-D), Feb 2003. Discussed by WPG on 2003.02.19, to be reviewed
Another proposal from NBF expected on the question of classification of fluids with
suspended solids (New 129)
NEW 121 moved to 1/37 Sub-sea process equipment
Origin of the question : NBF (TRG 1-E), Feb 2003, Input from Norway April 03
NEW 122 solved to Type 1/type 2 standards
Origin of the question : WPG meetings November 2002, December 2002, February 2003.
Classification of welding standards reviewed with the Chairman of CEN/TC 121 on
2003-03-24
NEW 123 moved to 1/44 Are breathing apparatus in the scope of PED ?
Origin of the question : EC, February 2003
NEW 124 moved to 1/48 Flame arresters
Origin of the question : Germany, March 2003. Discussed by WPG on 2003.06.18. German input August 2003
NEW 125 deleted to Applicability of a QA system to a test report
Origin of the question : Sweden, March 2003.

No need, dealt with in guideline 7/5
NEW 126 moved to 7/24 Affirming material specification
Origin of the question : Denmark, March 2003
NEW 127 solved to User Inspectorates and PMAs
Origin of the question : Users, May 2003

Dealt with in guideline 9/14
NEW 128 moved to 8/14 Proof testing of safety valves
Origin of the question : UK, May 2003

NEW 129 moved to 2/30 Suspension of dangerous solids
Origin of the question : EC, May 2003
NEW 130 moved to 3/17 Assembly without safety accessory
Origin of the question : CLAP 225 ; User comments August 2003
NEW 131 moved to 5/6 Choice between the use of a safety accessory or a monitoring device
NEW 132 moved to 9/22 Language of the EC declaration of conformity
NEW 133 moved to 2/31 Piping components connected together for the placing on the market
Origin of the question : CLAP 239 ; User comments August 2003
NEW 134 deleted Temperature to be taken into account for the test pressure

Discussed by WPG on 2004-04-15. Input expected from Belgium
Reviewed on 2004.10.07. Deleted. Input from Belgium October 04. Deletion confirmed
by WPG on 2004.12.16
NEW 135 moved to 1/49 Exclusion of Article 1.3.12 for fluid power accumulators
NEW 136 moved to 2/33 Category of a safety chain including a pressure equipment
NEW 137 moved to 9/23 National putting into service inspections
Origin of the question : EC, November 03, Users comments November 03, Denmark comments December 03
NEW 138 moved to 9/24 Additional requirements for equipment containing explosive/inflammable fluids
Origin of the question : EC, November 03
NEW 139 moved to 6/14 Welding on a pressure bearing component
NEW 140 moved to 7/2 Quality assurance system for material manufacturers

Discussed by WPG on 2004.02.25. To be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed
revision of 7/16

NEW 141 moved to 7/24 Clarification of 7/24
Origin of the question : ORGALIME December 03; EC December 03
NEW 142 moved to 2/32 Quick opening closures
Origin of the question : Denmark, January 2004
NEW 143 moved to Approval of WPS
Origin of the question : Denmark, February 2004

Discussed by WPG on 2004.02.25. To be reviewed by Denmark in conjunction with 6/11
Proposal from Denmark for addition in 6/11. Discussed by WPG on 2004-04-15. Input
from Austria expected for a separate guideline.
Denmark to inform if still needed by May 2008.
NEW 144 moved to 1/12 Revision of guideline 1/12
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, April 2004
NEW 145 moved to 7/25 Welded tubes
Origin of the question : France, April 2004
NEW 146 moved to 2/34 Category of a refrigeration compressor
Origin of the question : France, April 2004
NEW 147 deletedo Repairs and modifications described by the manufacturer
Origin of the question : EC, May 2004. Comments from France, June 2004.Discussed by WPG on 2004-06-16.
Deleted
NEW 148 moved to 1/29 Pipeline in user premises
Origin of the question : NBF, June 2004
NEW 149 deleted Application for module G verification
Origin of the question : France, June 2004. Discussed by WPG on 2004-06-16. To be checked by EC with
people responsible for horizontal issues. Transferred to the ADCO group
NEW 150 deleted Classification of breathing bottles

Discussed by WPG on 2004-06-15, to be further investigated by UK
Reviewed on 2004.10.07. Deleted
NEW 151 deleted User inspectorate responsible for conformity assessment
Origin of the question : EC, August 04. Comments from users September 04.
Discussed by WPG on 2004.10.07. To be further investigated.
Status to be checked by ECUI by May 2008
Reviewed on 2009-10-01

NEW 152 deleted Renting of an assembly
Origin of the question : EC, August 04.

No need, see Blue Guide subclause 2.3.1
NEW 153 moved to 8/16 Pneumatic pressure test
NEW 154 moved to 8/17 Marking on a sticker
NEW 155 deleted Classification of piping
Origin of the question : France, October 04

Discussed by WPG on 2004.10.07. No need
NEW 156 moved to 2/35 Piping with double envelope
Origin of the question : France, October 04. Comments from Denmark October 04
NEW 157 moved to 2/37 Drip pot
Origin of the question : France, October 04. Comments from Denmark October 04
Discussed by WPG on 2004.10.07. No need. New input from France December04
NEW 158 moved to 2/7 Classification of dangerous fluids
Origin of the question : Denmark November 04, ORGALIME comments December 04
NEW 159 moved to 7/19 Fittings as materials
Origin of the question : Denmark November 04
NEW 160 moved to 2/20 Classification of fluids defined as flammable
Origin of the question : Sweden December 04
NEW 161 moved to 2/36 Hot blast stoves
Origin of the question : UK December 04
NEW 162 moved to 2/38 Exclusion of art. 1.3.16 silencers
Origin of the question : France December 04
NEW 163 deleted Pressure cookers
Origin of the question : Finland, March 05

Draft 2/39 issued by WPG on 2005-03-16, Finnish comments April 05
Discussed by WPG on 2005-07-05. No need

NEW 164 moved to 1/8 Manifolds
Origin of the question : NBF, March 05, CLAP 221-March 03
NEW 165 moved to 5/7 Parts of equipment
Origin of the question : NBF, March 05
NEW 166 moved to 1/29 Pressure reduction stations
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, March 05
NEW 167 deleted Protective devices in pressure reduction station
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, March 05

Discussed by WPG on 2005-03-15: question outside the scope of PED
NEW 168 moved to 10/8 Declaration of an assembly
Origin of the question : NBF, March 05
NEW 169 moved to 1/8 Manifolds
Origin of the question : Users, March 05
NEW 170 moved to 4/11 CE Marking of Bursting Disc Safety Devices
Origin of the question : UK, March 05
NEW 171 deleted Thermoplastics
Origin of the question : Ed Haynes, March 05

Discussed on 2004-04-20 ; already covered by 3/6 and 8/2
NEW 172 deleted Operating inspections
Origin of the question : CABF, June 05. Discussed by WPG on 2005-07-05 ; already covered by 8/3
NEW 173 deleted Assigning weld procedures
Origin of the question : CABF, June 05. Discussed by WPG on 2005-07-05 ; issue covered by civil law
NEW 174 deleted Assigning type examination certificates
Origin of the question : CABF, June 05. Discussed by WPG on 2005-07-05 ; issue covered by civil law
NEW 175 moved to 2/19 Essential limits of heat exchanger
NEW 176 moved to 4/12 Linking Type/Design certificates to QA approvals (TRG 0044 Rev 2)
Origin of the question : CABF November 05

NEW 177 moved to 3/17 Boiler Characteristics (TRG 0047 Rev 2)
NEW 178 moved to Final Inspection for modules F & G (TRG 0048 Rev 1)
4/13
NEW 179 moved Own brand labeling (TRG 0050 Rev 1)
Origin of the question : CABF November 05, ORGALIME input September 2009
NEW 180 deleted Pre-commissioning
Origin of the question : EC November 05, Users comments November 2005
NEW 181 moved to 7/16 Quality system of the material manufacturer
NEW 182 moved to 7/2 Competent body in Annex I section 4.3
NEW 183 deleted Surface cracks
Origin of the question : Denmark, February 06. Discussed by WPG on 2006-11-22 : no guideline ; to be
discussed by ADCO if needed
NEW 184 deleted Flexible hose
Origin of the question : Denmark, February 06. Discussed by WPG on 2006-11-22 : exclusion agreed, no need
for a guideline
NEW 185 deleted Supplementary metrology marking
Origin of the question : Ed Haynes, March 06. Discussed by WPG on 2006-11-22 : no need for a guideline
NEW 186 moved to 1/52 Electrical pressure cookers
NEW 187 solved Pressure test
Origin of the question : Denmark, June 06 ; CLAP 233 ; to be dealt with in the harmonised standards
NEW 188 moved to 7/4 Material documentation
Origin of the question : Denmark, September 06

NEW 189 moved to 2/5 Over-temperature safeguard
Origin of the question : Denmark, September 06 Ed Haynes comments October 06
NEW 190 deleted Vessel-in-vessel
Origin of the question : ITER-team, October 06
NEW 191 moved to 2/16 Pressure regulators and shut-off valves (amendment to 2/16)
NEW 192 moved to 5/6 Reliable protection of safety accessory
Origin of the question : ORGALIME, November 2006, Users comment, November 2006
NEW 193 moved to Pressure test for breathing bottles

8/12, 8/18, 1/44
Origin of the question : Germany, January 2007

Proposal expected from Germany and ECMA, by May 2008, on conformity of breathing
cylinders to PED by using EN 1964-1. Drafts submitted by Germany and France ;
discussed by WPG 20 May 2008 ; issued as Q1 draft revision of 1/10 , Q2 Use of
concepts from ADR, Q3 Application of gas cylinder standards, Q4 Assessment of
valves under PED and a proposed revision of 8/12. Discussed again by WPG on 11
September 2008: Q2 and Q3 deleted. Q1 waiting for legal advice. Discussed again by
WPG on 16 December 2008: Q1 solved, Q4 moved to 1/44
NEW 194 deleted to EC declaration of conformity for assemblies
NEW 195 deleted Piping diameter inches/mm
Origin of the question : UK, Jan 2011
NEW 196 moved to 5/8 Safety accessories self-diagnosis
NEW 197 Safety accessorypressure surge
Origin of the question : FR, April 2011
NEW 198 Approval of permanent joint operating procedures

NEW 199 moved to 1/53 Dryer roll for paper industry
Origin of the question : FR, July 2011
NEW 200 Scope- boundary of vessels
Origin of the question : FR July 2011
NEW 201 Pressure limiting devices- short duration
Origin of the question : FR, July 2011
NEW 202 Turbine connection piping
Origin of the question : CABF, June 2011
NEW 203 Classification extinguishers (non portable)
Origin of the question : DE, 12-9-2011
NEW 204 Micro-channel heat exchanger
Origin of the question : FR, Dec 2011

Discussion in WPG Jan 2013, pending
NEW 205 Traceability material certificate
NEW 206 ESR limits for application

Decision by WPG 2'-25 April 2012 that no specific guideline is required.
NEW 207 Material certificates
Origin of the question : CABF, Dec 2011

CABF invited to submit updated version (see WPG meeting minutes 24-25-4-202
NEW 208 Explosion pressure
Origin of the question : CABF, DEC 2011

1-56nf (WPG meeting of 24-25-4-2012), to be continued
NEW 209 Scope vacuum vessels
Origin of the question : DE, 22-03-2012

See WPG 1/57
NEW 210 Is it acceptable to have a plus tolerance on the set pressure for a safety valve
where PS has been chosen as the set pressure?
Origin of the question : SE, 18-4-2012
Integrated in New 201 and WPG 5/9

NEW 211 moved to 7/28 Bending rupture energy
Origin of the question : FR, Jan 2013, updated version April 2013
Discussed in WPG 25/4/2013, adopted new guideline
NEW 212 moved to 6/16 Temporary device for manufacturing
Origin of the question : FR, Jan 2013
NEW 213 moved to 6/17 Replacement after proof test
Origin of the question : FR Jan 2013
NEW 214 deleted Turbine suction pump
Origin of the question : NL , Jan 2013

WPG considers no need for guideline
NEW 215 Composite pressure vessels PED requirements for material and manufacturing

Initial discussion in WPG of 25/4/2013, to be further discussed
NEW 216 PMA Supplementary tests
Origin of the question : CABF, 2012

Initial discussion in WPG of 19/9/2013
NEW 217 Revalidation of welder approval
Origin of the question : CABF, June 2013

NEW 218 PS of assembly
Origin of the question : FR, Sept 2013

NEW 219 Non Destructive testing

NEW 220 Additional load cases

Template
NEW 221 Minimumweldmaterialproperties
Origin of the question : CABF, March 2014

List of Questions Version 88 - Dated - 2015!03!11

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

List of Questions Version 88 - Dated - 2015!03!11

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

List of questions on PED

1 Scope and exclusions

Origin of the question : France Q3 accepted by WPG on 1998-10-13

Guideline 1 /4 When is a modification of a piping system not covered by the PED ?

Origin of the question : France Q4 accepted by WPG on 1998-10-13

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 1

Origin of the question :

Guideline 1/8 What is a pressure accessory

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 2

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 3

Origin of the question : ORGALIME, June 2002, User comments June

Origin of the question :

Guideline 1/23 Is the operational function of portable extinguishers covered by PED ?

Origin of the question : Question from Spain 1999.10.22

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 4

Guideline 1/27 What does mobile off-shore mean in exclusion 3.14 ?

Origin of the question : Question discussed on 1999-09-02, UK proposal on 1999.11.23, postponed

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 5

Guideline 1/31 Are NGV filling stations covered by PED ?

Origin of the question : Finland, September 2002

Origin of the question : ORGALIME 86, Finland proposal on 2001.02

Origin of the question : Finland, August 2001

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 6

Origin of the question : Norway, December 2001

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 7

Origin of the question : New-50 : CLAP 142

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 8

Origin of the question : New-99

Origin of the question : New 199 (France, 2011)

1/54 ADR placeholder referred back to WPG in WGP meeting of 2013.03.07

Origin of the question : New 202 (CABF 2011)

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 9

Origin of the question : New 208 (CABF 2012) explosion pressure

Accepted by WPG on 2012-09-12

Guideline 1/57 Are vacuum vessels in the scope of the PED?

Origin of the question : New 209 (DE,2012)

Origin of the question : MARCOGAZ 19

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 10

2 Classification and categories

Guideline 2/4 Which type of pressure equipment is a heat exchanger ?

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 11

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 12

Origin of the question : Proposal from UK on 2000.01.28

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 13

Origin of the question : CLAP 41, ORGALIME 5

Guideline 2/17 How are pressure accessories classified?

Origin of the question : UK, August 2000

Origin of the question : CLAP 110, draft discussed on 2000.10.02, to be confirmed

Origin of the question : Finland

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 14

Guideline 2/22 What does overheating mean in Article 3 paragraph 1.2 ?

Origin of the question : Question derived from New-68

Guideline 2/23 How should a solar panel be classified?

Origin of the question : Austria, November 2001

Origin of the question : ORGALIME, August 2002

Origin of the question : New-114, Belgium, January 2003.

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 15

Guideline 2/30 How should a fluid containing a suspension of a solid be classified?

Origin of the question : New 129 : EC, May 2003

Origin of the question : New-146 (France, April 2004)

List of questions on PED directive - Version 88 dated 2015-03-11 - Page 16

Origin of the question : New 162, France December 04

Origin of the question : France, March 2009