thread378-208519
Hoping to continue discussion of the referenced thread.
Specifically regarding pig trap doors and filter vessel closures, the DOT regs (49 CFR 195.124) state that closures must comply with the ASME BPV Code Sect. VIII Div 1. Sect. The BPV Code sect UG-115 appears to require that all vessels have a code stamp installed.
However, in my personal experience of seeing countless closures in the field, rarely are closure doors supplied with code stamps, have relief valves per the code, or are tested to API 510. Some suppliers seem to only provide a code stamps if it is specifically requested, (but may still claim that their doors are built to the BPV code Sect. VIII.)
Is it possible for a closure door to be built to Sect. VIII and not have a code stamp or be tested to API 510? I have not seen anything yet that clearly states that this is acceptable, I've only heard "that is how we have always done it".
Concerning the code exemption for "generally recognized piping components or accessories" - I think I can understand that a pig trap barrel, or a filter vessel body, if it is made out of standard pipe, with standard nozzles, flanges, tees, fittings etc., per B31.4 can be considered "piping accessories"; but for the closure door that is engineered to an entirely different code, I don't see how that can be called a standard piping accessory.
Please note, that my questions really pertain to compliance only. I think we're doing all of the reasonable & prudent things any operator would do with their equipment, so I'm not particularly concerned about actual integrity of these components at this time.
Hoping to continue discussion of the referenced thread.
Specifically regarding pig trap doors and filter vessel closures, the DOT regs (49 CFR 195.124) state that closures must comply with the ASME BPV Code Sect. VIII Div 1. Sect. The BPV Code sect UG-115 appears to require that all vessels have a code stamp installed.
However, in my personal experience of seeing countless closures in the field, rarely are closure doors supplied with code stamps, have relief valves per the code, or are tested to API 510. Some suppliers seem to only provide a code stamps if it is specifically requested, (but may still claim that their doors are built to the BPV code Sect. VIII.)
Is it possible for a closure door to be built to Sect. VIII and not have a code stamp or be tested to API 510? I have not seen anything yet that clearly states that this is acceptable, I've only heard "that is how we have always done it".
Concerning the code exemption for "generally recognized piping components or accessories" - I think I can understand that a pig trap barrel, or a filter vessel body, if it is made out of standard pipe, with standard nozzles, flanges, tees, fittings etc., per B31.4 can be considered "piping accessories"; but for the closure door that is engineered to an entirely different code, I don't see how that can be called a standard piping accessory.
Please note, that my questions really pertain to compliance only. I think we're doing all of the reasonable & prudent things any operator would do with their equipment, so I'm not particularly concerned about actual integrity of these components at this time.
