Scope of application of the new capacity regulations
Thread Content
One of the requirements in the 99th edition of the regulations states that containers with an inner diameter of less than 150 mm are not suitable for these regulations. The 2009 version of the regulatory standards removed this clause; henceforth, as long as the operating pressure is greater than 0.1 MPa and the PV product is greater than or equal to 2.5 MPa, it falls under the scope of these regulatory standards and requires classification. I think this is extremely unreasonable; the new regulations should not remove this clause. The reason is that many containers with heating tubes, which were not previously classified in this way, now need to be classified, although no inspection is carried out once they are classified. I once called the **General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine to ask for clarification, and was told that it should be classified as a multi-chamber container. The heating pipes for many such containers are used before starting up or when shutting down; once the system is operating normally, these heating pipes cease to function. So I think the new container regulations should not classify such containers. Please share your thoughts. Thank you
See Page 21 of the Interpretations of the Provisions in the Safety Supervision Regulations for Fixed Pressure Vessels.
Someone upstairs might have misunderstood; what I meant was that the scope of application of the new regulations should not exclude containers with an inner diameter of 150 mm or more. What I would like to discuss is whether the scope of application of the new regulations should include \"containers with an inner diameter of less than 150 mm\".
The standard is authority; there’s no way around it...
In current pressure vessel regulations, the energy released upon the failure of a vessel is taken into consideration; therefore, the PV product must be considered. Vessels with small diameters but high pressures can also be dangerous if they fail
Including, whoever has the power is the authority, haha. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I agree with the view from Floor 6, but generally we do not classify heat tracing pipes.
So, how harmful can something classified as a heat tracing tube be? I still think that clause should not be removed from the regulations, at least because containers classified due to heat tracing tubes are no longer classified in that way.
So, how harmful can something classified as a heat tracing tube be? I still think that clause should not be removed from the regulations, at least because containers classified due to heat tracing tubes are no longer classified in that way.
Who is the authority now? **General Administration for Quality Supervision? Looking at the change list of the new Code of Conduct, can we still trust authorities?