Sten-Ove Claesson, who has worked with quality and safety issues for many years at, among others, HYDAC, remains involved in the process and also took part in the work when inspection of the safety of accumulator installations in hydraulics under the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) was introduced in Sweden on January 1, 2006 (AFS 2005:3). The purpose of the Pressure Equipment Directive is that a pressure vessel that meets the PED requirements can be used in any EU member state without restrictions.
– In hydraulics, only the accumulator and its safety equipment fall under the directive, and since 2006 we have had an interpretation of the directive and what should be inspected to ensure sufficient safety in the handling of such pressure vessels. For some time, one of the country’s inspection bodies has expressed that it wanted to reinterpret the current interpretation, something that we in the hydraulics industry have opposed because it does not add any further level of safety and is therefore not needed, he explains.
Incorrectly refers to the Swedish Work Environment Authority
The industry association Swetic has followed the same line as the inspection company that first expressed dissatisfaction with the previous interpretation and has shown no interest in discussing the matter further with the hydraulics industry.
– In addition, Swetic refers to the new interpretation having been “adopted” in consultation with the Swedish Work Environment Authority, which gives a misleading picture of how work on safety regulations functions. The Swedish Work Environment Authority’s view on inspection is documented in regulations and their general recommendations, currently AFS 2023:11. The Swedish Work Environment Authority does not regulate in more detail than what the current regulations state. This means that they cannot be involved in the new interpretation that Swetic wants to apply.
Swetic’s proposed new interpretation unnecessary and complicating
The new interpretation proposed by Swetic includes, among other things, the view that an additional safety valve is needed to ensure accumulator safety, and that it should be placed in the hydraulic system itself to limit the pressure level of the hydraulic pump and furthermore be sealed at a certain level.
– Those who work with hydraulics know that such a sealed valve would significantly complicate maintenance work in the hydraulic system, while at the same time it could negatively affect functionality. That makes us wonder what relevant reasons they have for the reinterpretation. It definitely has nothing to do with any major accidents involving accumulators that could have been prevented by such a sealed safety valve, so why introduce this stricter interpretation? The same interpretation is not made in other EU countries where PED applies either.
Not all inspection bodies are affiliated with Swetic
Since Swetic is avoiding further discussion on the matter, SFMA and SSG’s hydraulics group sent out a letter to their members at the beginning of the summer stating that the interpretation established in 2006 still applies and is not incorrect, while also providing more detailed information on the issue.
– The letter also highlights that the accreditation system allows the possibility of choosing another inspection body, or another inspector from the existing inspection body, and that not all inspection bodies are affiliated with Swetic, Sten-Ove Claesson concludes.
