Issues related to changes in pressure vessels?

1. If it can be ensured that the actual operating pressure of the container is at atmospheric pressure, and there are reliable safeguards in place, an application can be submitted to the local special equipment safety supervision agency to have the container’s registration revoked； 2. Once a container has had its registration revoked and becomes an atmospheric pressure container under internal corporate management, it may no longer be used as a pressure vessel; otherwise, if it is found to still be used as a pressure-bearing device, the company and its relevant responsible persons will have to bear corresponding legal responsibilities ； 3. For such containers, special equipment supervision agencies usually give them considerable attention and special focus as key inspection targets. For reference!

Currently, the regulation of pressure vessels is becoming increasingly strict. Managing pressure vessels involves quite a lot of paperwork – applications must be submitted and regular inspections are required – but from a safety perspective, this approach provides better protection.

During the design of pressure vessels, the issue mentioned by the original poster is often encountered: the normal operating pressure is at atmospheric pressure, but it is still treated as a pressure vessel for design and management purposes. This is primarily related to the state of the container throughout the entire process, as well as the reliability of the supporting facilities and the skill level and sense of responsibility of the operators. The user provides this information to the designer, who then decides whether to adopt it based on the content and data provided. For example: a container has a normal operating pressure at atmospheric level, takes 1 hour to complete a certain task, and is equipped with pressurization and discharge devices. In actual work, three situations may arise: 1. Everything proceeds as per normal requirements. 2. Operators artificially increase pressure to unsafe levels in order to reduce working time and improve efficiency. 3. The operators did not carry out their tasks properly; they forgot to open a certain discharge valve or the valve failed to function, resulting in pressure rising to an unsafe level. Therefore, there are two opinions for the original poster to consider: 1. Strictly enforce discipline in production processes, and enhance safety awareness education and training for frontline workers. With this as a guarantee, an application for cancellation procedures can be submitted. 2. Without any safeguards, it is declared as a pressure vessel, with the supervisory authorities overseeing safety measures. These are personal opinions for reference only.

Why is it designed to operate under pressure, but actually operates at atmospheric pressure? What are the potential safety hazards? It is recommended that the poster consult the design institute to find out the situation before deciding whether to cancel the registration.

From a design perspective, atmospheric pressure vessels are designed and managed as such; there are also regulations governing their management, as it cannot be handled casually. There are too many problems with atmospheric pressure vessels, while pressure vessels, of course, need to be designed and managed in accordance with relevant standards. As the original poster said, this does indeed exist; production units should handle it properly and manage it in accordance with the design requirements – that’s correct.

What the people mentioned above said is also correct; companies should take costs into consideration. The cost of regular inspections for containers is quite high; therefore, if they are indeed to be used as atmospheric-pressure containers, it is possible to go to the local quality and technical supervision department to proceed with the procedures for discontinuing their use, by explaining the actual situation.