Information Bulletin: Legacy Pressure Piping Systems
Information Bulletin
Information Bulletin: Legacy Pressure Piping Systems
June 25, 2021
Reference Number:
IB-DA 2021-01
This bulletin provides guidance on the registration of legacy pressure piping systems. Owners, designers, and installers should consult with local authorities having jurisdiction to determine requirements before undertaking work.
Re-Rating and Registration of Existing Pressure Piping
This guideline clarifies registration requirements of pressure piping registration to systems that were commissioned before April 1, 2009. The Power Engineers, Boilers, Pressure Vessels and Refrigeration Safety Regulation (PEBPVRSR) revised its definition of pressure piping on April 1, 2009. Before April 1, 2009, the PEBPVRSR had the following definition for pressure piping:
Pressure piping means a system of pipes, tubes, conduits, gaskets, bolts and other components, the sole purpose of which is the conveyance of an expansible fluid under pressure and the control of the flow of an expansible fluid under pressure between 2 or more points;
As of April 1, 2009, the definition of pressure piping is as follows:
Pressure piping is defined as a system of pipes, tubes, conduits, gaskets, bolts and other components, the sole purpose of which is the conveyance of:
- An expansible fluid, or
- A non-expansible fluid or thermal fluid with an operating temperature exceeding 121˚C or a working pressure exceeding 1100 kPa between 2 or more points.
In general, existing non-expansible fluid and thermal fluid systems that were commissioned before April 1, 2009 are considered “legacy” and are not impacted unless they undergo an alteration. Alterations, as defined in CSA B51, require these systems to become subject to the registration requirements, as stated in CSA B51. Legacy systems that are not being altered, are not subject to registration solely due to the change definition.
Appendix A: Examples and Guide
The registration requirements for non-expansible fluid and thermal fluid piping systems commissioned before April 1, 2009 will vary by the type of alteration being conducted. Generally, pressure piping registration requires submission of both the pressure piping design and the Construction Data Report (CDR) following construction. The table below are examples only. There will be other cases and we rely on Professional Engineers to disclose these other case studies.
Examples Requiring Design RegistrationPhysical Alterations with no changes in the original design conditions of the existing pressure piping system. |
Guide |
Tying into a line for a take-off to a new service. | Only the revised/altered part of the system is subject to registration. Existing parts of the system are legacy and not subject to registration. |
Re-routing of an existing section of piping that results in an alteration. | CDR is only required for the new parts of the system. |
Alterations that would necessitate an updated flexibility analysis (including changes to the support system). | Only the revised/altered part of the system is subject to registration. Existing parts of the system are legacy and not subject to registration. |
Outcome: Only the new portions of the system will be provided a Piping Registration Number (PRN).
Note: Changes that have a negligible impact on the system integrity (e.g. nozzle orientation on a line), or replacement of existing sections of piping due to normal lifecycle degradation would not require registration.
Examples Requiring Design RegistrationChanges to the design conditions with no physical alterations to the pressure piping system |
Guide |
Increased or decreased design temperature, increased design pressure, a change in fluid characteristics (e.g. more corrosive changing the corrosion considerations, changing from a non-compressible to compressible fluid) | A design submission is required for the entirety of the existing system. This design submission must demonstrate that adequate due diligence, including a condition assessment, has been performed to validate that the existing piping system (including all components) is suitable for the new (registerable) design conditions. All documents required for pressure piping design submissions are still applicable and listed on our website. |
Post-alteration integrity verification is required as per CSA B51 and NBIC Part 3. A CDR that records the testing outcomes is required (i.e. the remaining information does not need to be completed in the CDR); there is no need to provide records from the earlier installation of the existing system and the inspector would not be assessing the existing components. |
Outcome: The system will be registered and provided a PRN for the entire existing system.
Examples Requiring Design RegistrationA combination of physical alterations and design conditions |
Guide |
Changing the fluid dynamics of a line, which results in resizing a pressure relief device (PRD), or pressure safety valve, and re-evaluating the PRD load calculations of the line | A design submission for the entirety of the combined new and existing system is required. This design submission must demonstrate that adequate due diligence, including a condition assessment, has been performed to validate that the existing piping system (including all components) is suitable for the new (registerable) design conditions. |
Rerouting of a line while also changing the design conditions. | A full CDR is required for the new parts of the system. Pressure testing of the entire system to the new design conditions is required which would be recorded on the CDR; there is no need to provide records from the earlier installation of the existing system and the inspector would not be assessing the existing components. |
Outcome: The system will be registered and provided a single PRN although composed of both existing and new components.
For the existing systems, the codes applicable at the time of the original installation are acceptable and can be used as a basis for an evaluation. For alterations, the code must be the edition of code of construction or current edition of the code, whichever is more stringent. Please contact Technical Safety BC’s Engineering team to discuss other scenarios.