Inspectioneering
Inspectioneering Journal

API 510 Acceptance Table

By Phil Smith at Chevron. This article appears in the March/April 2014 issue of Inspectioneering Journal
Editor’s Note: 

Process facility operators often must adhere to certain laws, rules, and/or policies to operate their assets safely and reliability.  These laws and policies vary from company to company and from one government jurisdiction to another.  Typically, corporate policies will mandate adherence to governmental regulations and may supply additional company policies (best practices, methodologies, etc.) to further enhance the safety and/or business result.  Government jurisdictional rules may vary from country to country (or any part thereof), perhaps state to state, county to county, and even city to city.   

Often times, where chemical processing businesses are owned in part or whole by the country, the rules may be mandated by a state/country owned business entity, wherein the rules should represent what that country feels is representative of best practices.  This may vary based upon the degree of commonality of shared principles and the level of central authority and communication between that country and its businesses.   

Jurisdictions or companies will often refer to certain codes and standards as applicable, and then add additional controls or caveats around those codes.  For example, some jurisdictions accept the use of Risked Based Inspection per API RP 580 for establishing inspection strategies, with additional rules imposed such as a maximum frequency of 15 years without performing an actual internal inspection, as appropriate.   

For readers who are interested in jurisdictional acceptance of the API inspection codes for pressure vessels, piping and storage tanks, we present the following update from Mr. Phil Smith.  This picture is like a moving landscape.  We have done our best to provide up-to-date information, but we urge all readers to verify the information contained herein with the appropriate state, city, province and territory authorities before proceeding.  If you see something that has changed or is inaccurate now, please let us know so we can make the appropriate corrections.  Similarly, if you would like to share certain rules and regulations from your part of the world, please send us a note with all of the pertinent information.  You can submit any questions or comments by visiting https://inspectioneering.com/contact and filling out the general feedback form.   

Please let us know if this type of information is helpful.  If so, we will provide similar information covering jurisdictional acceptance of additional API piping and storage tank inspection codes in future issues of Inspectioneering Journal.

Sincerely,

Greg Alvarado
Chief Editor

The rules and regulations applying to U.S states, cities and Canadian provinces and territories concerning piping, pressure vessel and storage tank inspection can be described as "a coat of many colors," and are meant to represent continuous improvement over time.  This table provides some information that will hopefully be useful to you regarding the level of acceptance of the API 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection, Rating, Repair and Alteration, by the state, city, province and territorial authorities.
Jurisdiction Accepts API 510 in lieu of NBIC API 510 Inspectors can authorize repairs and alterations API 510 Inspectors can certify repairs & alterations "R" Stamp holder required for repairs & alterations Jurisdiction requires copy of repair & alteration report Notes
This table is available to Inspectioneering subscribers.

This content is available to registered users and subscribers

Register today to unlock this article for free.

Create your free account and get access to:

  • Unlock one premium article of your choosing per month
  • Exclusive online content, videos, and downloads
  • Insightful and actionable webinars
GET STARTED
Interested in unlimited access? VIEW OUR SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS

Current subscribers and registered users can log in now.


Comments and Discussion

Posted by Anthony Iavenditti on May 2, 2014
What is Note 33 for NY? Log in or register to read the rest of this comment.

(Inspectioneering) Posted by Nick Schmoyer on May 7, 2014
Hi Anthony, Note 33 for NY was a misprint and... Log in or register to read the rest of this comment.

Posted by Nader Sharara on May 26, 2014
Would be very interested in more information on... Log in or register to read the rest of this comment.

Posted by Christy Walsh on May 26, 2014
Its noted under British Columbia that inspectors... Log in or register to read the rest of this comment.

Posted by Gerald Lagarde on May 27, 2014
I believe the information regarding Louisiana is... Log in or register to read the rest of this comment.

Add a Comment

Please log in or register to participate in comments and discussions.


Inspectioneering Journal

Explore over 20 years of articles written by our team of subject matter experts.

Company Directory

Find relevant products, services, and technologies.

Job Postings

Discover job opportunities that match your skillset.

Case Studies

Learn from the experience of others in the industry.

Event Calendar

Find upcoming conferences, training sessions, online events, and more.

Industry News

Stay up-to-date with the latest inspection and asset integrity management news.

Blog

Read short articles and insights authored by industry experts.

Asset Intelligence Reports

Download brief primers on various asset integrity management topics.

Videos

Watch educational and informative videos directly related to your profession.

Expert Interviews

Inspectioneering's archive of interviews with industry subject matter experts.