Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. hosts a meeting called the UL IAG (Industry Advisory Group) which is selected toprovide the optimum input to the standards development process. When presented with the option of expanding the UL 2085 scope to include the aforementioned four-hour fire rating and multi-hazard listing, the GROUP firmly rejected the option by a vote of 19-1 as follows: I. In addition to the fact that no model fire or environmental code references a four-hour fire rating for tanks, there is no established fire exposure curve for the four-hour test. In essence, virtually any tank manufacturer could place its sample tank into a fire and maintain the fire for four hours and stipulate that it had a four-hour fire rating. The basis for a four-hour fire rating comes from various building codes, not fire codes for tanks. It is noteworthy that a leaking tank which found an ignition source would probably burn until its fuel supply was exhausted--IN LESS THAN TWO HOURS, not the "suggested" four hours anyway! Therefore, the entire issue is based upon an event which would be unlikely to occur in a real-world site. II. Field repair of a tank which has suffered a catastrophic event such as a severe fire, vehicle impact and/or ballistics/projectiles, in most cases, is not practical. Besides the possible degradation of the structural steel supports, the devices and accessories often distort or soften. Openings provided for leak detection equipment, pumps, etc. may be damaged to the extent that they could not be effectively used after a fire exposure or catastrophic event. A "used" tank is not a "Used" Car. UL could easily charge fees to earn these listings. They chose not to do this. |