Subject: Pressure Working Group 12 March 2020 - discussion on deletion of note 1 of the C-13 guideline: Report of Orgalim PED TF Chair Frank Wohnsland

The meeting took place as planned. Due to the general situation, however, only five people participated in the face-to-face-meeting in Brussels:

2 representatives from Germany (government + market surveillance), 1 from , 1 from the and one person from a trade association (possibly industrial gases).

Besides, approximately 8 people were connected via video conference and another 9 participants attended via phone only (including the Chair since the video connection did not work with our system). The meeting in fact lasted from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. (with a total of 90 minutes break for lunch and for technical reasons). The Head of Unit Ms. Bonvissuto had to attend another meeting on rather short notice, so Hans D’Hooge chaired the meeting.

To quickly summarize it:

• The discussion on C-13 was kept relatively short. Mr. Borzel, representative of the German delegation and chairman of PED-AdCo, had prepared a presentation in which he re-emphasized the AdCo-arguments with the clear message to delete Note 1 of C-13 and thus in effect to reverse the view that had been acceptable and established for 19 years now (see attached file “Extract...pdf”). As many experts had attended this discussion already in February in WPG it was not something new, but contained actually (of course) the same formal arguments as for two years already:

- The market surveillance authorities start with the assumption that any connection of two (or more) items of pressure equipment automatically constitutes an assembly in the sense of the PED (i.e. if you define anything that is able to contain the pressure as “functional” in the sense of the PED you will always have assemblies...). Hence, any integration of one item pressure equipment higher than Cat. I into a machine would end up as a PED assembly higher than Cat. I.

• The Chair then had the opportunity to comment on the proposal. From the setting of the whole meeting it was quite clear that nobody wanted to go too much into any formalistic details (discussion was hardly feasible). So he mainly focused on the drastic consequences that such a “reversal of interpretations” would have on machine manufacturers – as documented in our annexes to Ms. Bonvissuto’s letter. He also emphasized that we as Orgalim vigorously object to this proposal and consider it indispensable to involve much stronger the representatives from the machinery sector as many of them probably haven’t even noticed the possible practical consequences (de facto destruction of Module A for many machine types).

Orgalim represents Europe’s technology industries: companies that innovate at the crossroads of digital and physical technology. Our industries develop and manufacture the products, systems and services that enable a prosperous and sustainable future. Ranging from large globally active corporations to regionally anchored small and medium-sized enterprises, the companies we represent directly employ 11 million people across Europe and generate an annual turnover of around €2,000 billion. Orgalim is registered under the Transparency Register – ID number: 20210641335-88.

Orgalim aisbl +32 2 206 68 83 BluePoint Brussels [email protected] Boulevard A Reyers 80 www.orgalim.eu B1030 | Brussels | VAT BE 0414 341 438

• Interestingly, the Commission appeared to have some sympathy for our position. Hans repeatedly emphasized the fact that there is NO safety issue and thus also no immediate urgency to come to a quick decision with many unwanted side effects. Hans wants to see further responses from members of the Machinery Working Group. Up to now, he has received two responses (see other attachment): one from Germany (not very surprisingly strongly supporting the AdCo-view) and one from , strongly supporting OUR position). An interesting aspect of the Swedish comment – that might give us another formal argument – is a reference to the general exclusion 1.2(j) of the PED. The Chair believes it could be promising to bring this into play.

• CABF has – not very surprisingly – considerable sympathy towards the AdCo-idea, without, however, pushing the subject too much.

• So, in the end no decision at all was taken. Next step would still be to get machinery people involved on a much stronger basis. The group – unofficially – agreed that it might make sense to convert the message in Note 1 into a separate Guideline which then might have the advantage to address the various scenarios in much more detail than up to now – well knowing, however, that this will also be a very controversial and difficult task.

As the COVID-19 situation is messing up all time schedules at this moment, it is quite unpredictable when the next meetings in the PED-context are about to take place (certainly WGP not earlier than in spring next year).

What we should certainly do, however:

• As soon as possible (when the crisis is over) organize a face-to-face meeting between Orgalim and Barbara Bonvissuto (including also machinery people), explaining to her this situation. The Chair understood that she is usually very keen on finding fast and clear solutions. Therefore, another WGP-meeting could always bear the danger that a quick decision with dramatic side effects could be made (in particular as the member states in WGP are sometimes acting in a quite surprising manner).

• Lay out for Orgalim a line of reasoning, based on:

a) sound formal/technical arguments (safety issues together with possible elements in the PED);

b) a strong emphasis on the practical consequences of the proposed paradigm shift;

c) maybe even go back to the “roots” of the PED, reminding all stakeholders of the intention of this Directive (which was the placing on the market of safe pressure equipment; on the contrary, declaring everything as assemblies was certainly NOT the intention)

d) define for ourselves a strategy that we could propose to resolve the dissensus. The “cleanest” way would of course be to initiate a PED-revision (in the wake of the current MD-revision), but this would be very time-consuming and would leave the discussion open for another 4-5 years. If the AdCo- people could live with this, the Chair would certainly favor such a way forward. But he has my doubts that they will agree.

Orgalim aisbl +32 2 206 68 83 BluePoint Brussels [email protected] Boulevard A Reyers 80 www.orgalim.eu B1030 | Brussels | Belgium VAT BE 0414 341 438

2