U Stamp on PED Vessels

[JohnGP]

For pressure vessels that are CE marked but designed, fabricated, and tested to ASME VIII Div 1, with Notified Body involvement to extent required by PED, is there any reason to have vessels U Stamped as well? I think that where PED conformance is mandated then CE Marking confirms this and U Stamp is superfluous - any comments?

 

[oilgasindustry]

If a pressure vessel is placed on the market and put into service in "Europe", only the CE Mark has any legal significance. Unless the customer, for some reason, has specified the U Stamp as a requirement of your contract; maybe he plans to re-use the vessel elsewhere at some future date?

 

[JohnGP]

No, I have the feeling that ASME U Stamp requirement was there because that was the usual means to confirm compliance with the code requirements. With CE marking for PED related vessels, U Stamp does not seem to add anything (assuming vessel is not going to be reused).

I would be interested to know whether deleting U stamp requirement would actually save me any money though.

 

[JohnGP]

I have registered vessels in Australia with ASME/NB certification, but not with PED compliance. With Mutual Recognition Agreements in place though, I guess it would not be a problem. Vessels for Australia with both ASME and PED compliance seems a bit weird though.

I'm having to come to terms with PED requirements for latest project and feel that retaining ASME U stamp is over-specifying (PED is mandatory in this case). On an almost related issue, I was interested in the forum discussion last year on the differing approach by NBs in relation to hydrotest pressure (Code or PED) and am waiting with bated breath to see what develops as we get further down the path.