national fire protection association report appurtenances, carburetion equipment, piping, hose and...

Download National Fire Protection Association Report appurtenances, carburetion equipment, piping, hose and fittings,

Post on 17-Mar-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Public Input No. 1-NFPA 58-2013 [ Global Input ]

    NOTE: This public input originates from Tentative Interim Amendment 58-14-1 (TIA 1079) issued by the Standards Council on August 1, 2013 and per the NFPA Regs. needs to be reconsidered by the Technical Committee for the next edition of the Document.

    11.1.1* This chapter applies to engine fuel systems on vehicles using LP-Gas in internal combustion engines, including containers, container appurtenances, carburetion equipment, piping, hose and fittings, and their installation.

    A.11.1.1 Chapter 11 covers engine fuel systems for engines installed on vehicles for any purpose, as well as fuel systems for stationary and portable engines.

    11.15.2 6.26 Containers for Stationary Engines.

    11.15.2.1 6.26.1 LP-Gas containers for stationary installations shall be located outside of buildings unless the buildings comply with the requirements of Chapter 10.

    11.15.2.2 6.26.2 Containers for stationary engines shall be installed to meet the separation requirements of Section 6.3.

    11.15.2.3 6.26.3 Where containers for stationary engines have a fill valve with an integral manual shutoff valve, the minimum separation distances shall be one-half of the distances specified in Section 6.3.

    Additional Proposed Changes

    File Name Description Approved Proposed_TIA_1079_58_.docx Balloted TIA

    Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

    The addition of new subsection 11.15.2 placed requirements for containers providing propane engine fuel for stationary engines. This requires all ASME propane containers to have a maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of 312 psig, if constructed after April 1, 2001 (per 11.3.2.1). It is the intent of the LP-Gas committee to require vehicle engine fuel containers to have a MAWP of 312 psig due to the possibility of overpressure and propane release due to heat accumulated from the engine or the vehicle’s operation. This environment does not exist for ASME propane containers serving stationary engines (such as emergency generators), and the normal MAWP of 250 psig is adequate. In practice such stationary engine fuel containers exist in the same environment as propane containers providing fuel to residential heating and cooking.

    The problem is ASME containers with a design pressure of 312 psig are currently produced in sizes up to 110 gallons. Larger 312 psig ASME containers will have to be custom designed and manufactured at a significantly higher cost and with a lengthy lead time. There is no technical reason to require this for stationary containers serving stationary engines.

    It is noted that the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code requires a minimum wall thickness for pressure vessels, with a design pressure of 250 and 312 psig, up to about 24” diameter. This requirement results in the same design for ASME containers of about 24” diameter and smaller for pressure of 250 psig and 312 psig. Vehicle fuel containers have a diameter of about 24” or smaller. This made the requirement for engine fuel containers on vehicles essentially the same, so there was no hardship. Stationary engines normally use larger containers, for example it is not unusual for a hospital using a propane engine for standby power to use a 250 gallon or larger ASME container. By relocating the requirement to Chapter 6, the 250 psig ASME container currently used with no adverse safety implications can continue to be used.

    The scope of Chapter 11 is revised to clarify that Chapter 11, in its entirety, is intended only for propane containers on vehicle, and was never intended to be applicable to containers serving stationary engines.

    Emergency Nature: The committee erred when it added requirements for containers for stationary engines in Chapter 11, rather than Chapter 6. The NFPA regulations Governing Committee Projects provide several criteria for the emergency nature of TIA’s. Two of these are applicable to the proposed TIA: (a) The document contains an error or an omission that was overlooked during a regular revision process. (f) The proposed TIA intends to correct a circumstance in which the revised document has resulted in an adverse impact on a product or method that was inadvertently overlooked in the total revision process, or was without adequate technical (safety) justification for the action. The committee required the use of tanks significantly more expensive and not readily available. (312 psig containers rather than250 psig containers in sizes larger than 110 gallons) by locating the requirements in Chapter 11, rather than Chapter 6. No technical substantiation was provided to require a change to the container design pressure; however, by inadvertently locating the requirement in Chapter 11, a higher design pressure was inadvertently mandated.

    Submitter Information Verification

    Submitter Full Name: TC on LPG-AAA Organization: TC on Liquefied Petroleum Gases Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Oct 31 08:27:23 EDT 2013

    Committee Statement

    Resolution: FR-69-NFPA 58-2014 Statement: The addition of new subsection 11.15.2 placed requirements for containers providing propane engine fuel for stationary engines. This requires all

    ASME propane containers to have a maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of 312 psig, if constructed after April 1, 2001 (per 11.3.2.1). It is the intent of the LP-Gas committee to require vehicle engine fuel containers to have a MAWP of 312 psig due to the possibility of overpressure and propane release due to heat accumulated from the engine or the vehicle’s operation. This environment does not exist for ASME propane containers serving stationary engines (such as emergency generators), and the normal MAWP of 250 psig is adequate. In practice such stationary engine fuel

    National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

    1 of 280 2/6/2015 12:06 PM

  • containers exist in the same environment as propane containers providing fuel to residential heating and cooking.

    The problem is ASME containers with a design pressure of 312 psig are currently produced in sizes up to 110 gallons. Larger 312 psig ASME containers will have to be custom designed and manufactured at a significantly higher cost and with a lengthy lead time. There is no technical reason to require this for stationary containers serving stationary engines.

    It is noted that the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code requires a minimum wall thickness for pressure vessels, with a design pressure of 250 and 312 psig, up to about 24” diameter. This requirement results in the same design for ASME containers of about 24” diameter and smaller for pressure of 250 psig and 312 psig. Vehicle fuel containers have a diameter of about 24” or smaller. This made the requirement for engine fuel containers on vehicles essentially the same, so there was no hardship. Stationary engines normally use larger containers, for example it is not unusual for a hospital using a propane engine for standby power to use a 250 gallon or larger ASME container. By relocating the requirement to Chapter 6, the 250 psig ASME container currently used with no adverse safety implications can continue to be used.

    The scope of Chapter 11 is revised to clarify that Chapter 11, in its entirety, is intended only for propane containers on vehicle, and was never intended to be applicable to containers serving stationary engines.

    National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

    2 of 280 2/6/2015 12:06 PM

  • Public Input No. 2-NFPA 58-2013 [ Global Input ]

    NOTE: This public input originates from Tentative Interim Amendment 58-14-2 (TIA 1095) issued by the Standards Council on August 1, 2013 and per the NFPA Regs. needs to be reconsidered by the Technical Committee for the next edition of the Document.

    6.12.9 Where emergency shutoff valves are required to be installed in fixed piping at bulk plants and industrial plants, accordance with 6.12.2, a means shall be incorporated to actuate the emergency shutoff valves in the event of a break of the fixed piping resulting from a pull on the hose.

    Additional Proposed Changes

    File Name Description Approved Proposed_TIA_1095_58_.docx Balloted TIA

    Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

    Since 2001 the installation of Emergency Shutoff Valves has been allowed not only to protect transfer lines at bulkheads (loading/unloading stations) but also at the liquid outlet of containers to comply with 5.7.4.2 (D)(2), (H)(2). The action taken by the Technical Committee during the balloting process on Comment 58-58 would require all Emergency Shutoff Valves regardless of where they are installed in the fixed piping system to incorporate a means to actuate in the event of break in the fixed piping resulting from a pull on the hose. This would include Emergency Shutoff Valves installed 100 feet or more from the transfer hose at the container opening which is used to only protect the liquid withdrawal opening at the container not the hose at the transfer station. It was the intent of the Technical Committee to require activation of only the Emergency Shutoff Valve installed within 20 feet of the nearest end of the hose or swivel-type piping connection (see 6.12.2).

    Emergency Nature: The intent of the committee was to cover only those emergency shutoff valves that are installed to protect the loading and unloading stations; the proposed 6.12.9 goes far beyond the intent. As currently written, Comment 58-58 would create a huge installation problem an

Recommended

View more >