Section VIII, Div. 1 (now in Ed. 04, Add. 05) references in UG-116 (a) and Fig. UG-118 that the max. allowable external pressure is only to be stated on the nameplate when external pressure is a “design condition”. UG-119 (a) is also referring to Fig. UG-118 for the nameplate to be used. So, as by now, when there is no external pressure the former nameplate lay-out (without MAEWP) is still being used by a lot of clients. Taking the text of Code Case 2519 into account, I have some questions:
1. it seems the nameplate lay-out must be changed with the additional line for the MAWP ….. psi at …. °F (see UG-119 (a)) and if there is no external pressure involved one must just indicate here “zero” or “N.A.” Is this correct ?
2.if the answer to question 1 is NO, should a manufacturer have 2 different nameplate lay-out exhibits in his QC Manual.

Hi Eddy, it was in recent JR the common understanding, that: if we are not having external pressure, we leave the nameplates as before. Only, if specified by the designer , an additional line is specifying the MAEWP. So the QC- manual may display two nameplate versions