AST Codes and Standards Developments

AST Codes and Standards Developments

NEWS & VIEWS TOC | PREVIOUS

USA--Rick Thornberry, President of The Code Consortium, Inc. is a professional fire protection engineer and nationally known consultant.

NFPA - ConVault, Inc. appeared at the NFPA tradeshow held in Cincinnati, Ohio, in May. The tradeshow booth was manned by the staff of Thickstun Bros. of Columbus, Ohio.

On May 4 and 5, 1998, the NFPA 30 Committee convened in Las Vegas, Nevada, to continue its composition of aboveground storage tank guidelines. Significant agenda items included whether to consolidate NFPA 30A and NFPA 395 into NFPA 30 as a single document. Currently, NFPA 30 describes the storage of Flammable and Combustible Liquid, referencing both underground and aboveground alternatives; NFPA 30A describes dispensing to motor vehicles at Service Stations and Marinas, and NFPA 395 describes fuel storage options in rural settings, temporary fuel sites, farms and construction sites. As one can see, a fire authority might have to look in three separate volumes for the correct information on how to store fuel in an AST. As a result, a movement is gathering to consolidate the references into a single chapter. Please understand that there is some opposition by code purists to this proposal.

International Fire Code- Although NFPA recently withdrew from the process due to differences in basic philosophical approach (industry input vs strict code enforcement input), from April 14 through April 18, 1998, very detailed challenges to the First Draft were heard in Washington, DC. Although tentatively scheduled for adoption in 2000, the parties are attempting to involve NFPA in the discussions again.

Some of the key proposals adopted were: Chapter 11- Aviation Facilities--Protected Tanks will now be allowed as equivalent technology to underground storage tanks in traffic areas of the airport facility. In addition, the proposal submitted by U-Fuel which suggested that a UL-142 which included a suppression system and substantial accessories might be considered equivalent to a Protected Tank was unanimously disapproved. This configuration is traditionally described as an "Appendix II-K" or Aviation Systems-listed AST in the marketplace. Such competitors as Bryant Tanks, SuperSafe, International Tanks and U-Fuel are specialty firms with a focus on the substantial aviation fuel industry. Our own Licensee with this expertise, Thickstun Bros., has been referenced in these legislative sessions based upon their superior record in airport installations. Moreover, the single issue which resulted in our proposal being unanimously adopted was the C-130 Hurricane aircraft impact at Fort Dobbins/Marietta, GA. Over 250 fire-fighters at the hearings in Washington, DC, had NOT heard of this event. The Steel Tank Institute challenged the accuracy of the storyline, but the testimony of the fire-fighting team from Marietta, GA, was instrumental in the adoption of the proposal. For specific language on the proposal, please contact ConVault, Inc.

Chapter 35 - Flammable/ Combustible An additional proposal which was tabled for future discussion was the submittal to alert the fire protection community of a serious oversight in installing ASTs—proper grounding of the assembly to avoid either static electricity or, more seriously, lightning strikes. As referenced in the Fort Carson, CO, incident (covered in the last News and Views), none of the 250 firefighters were aware of the fact that 66 ASTs per year receive lightning strikes. Perhaps more importantly, the Steel Tank Institute was successful in having this proposal tabled until the next hearing due to the fact that it was determined that adherence to NFPA 780 would create an "onerous" condition for STI. This is because the procedure requires that all steel-jacketed atmospheric tanks must have:

a) a roof thickness of 3/16-inch thickness to resist an actual puncture from the lightning strike (which would then provide an ignition-source to the fuel being stored) and

b) a minimum of two grounding terminals (lugs) to distribute the charge/current.

In both instances, STI testified that it has not adhered to this requirement and this would create a tremendous financial burden on their company. It is obvious that the IFC Committee wants to explore this issue further, as they advised ConVault, Inc. to resubmit the proposal in a slightly expanded version. For our present purposes, STI has conceded a requirement is being avoided due to a desire to make a "more economical" product. Unfortunately, it is our conclusion that this is at the expense of both fire and environmental security. More on this matter as we continue to coordinate with regulatory/legislative authorities.

A final bit of testimony submitted by STI involved its statement that there is virtually no record of "fire or explosion-related" incidents or failures involving UL-142 technology. ConVault, Inc. has discovered a number of incidents which contradict this testimony. To bolster this claim at the next series of hearings, we strongly urge the ConVault network to forward any photos or news clippings of UL-142 incidents to ConVault, Inc. for formal presentation. There is no such thing as having "too much evidence" in these matters and if we can accumulate regional examples from our entire network it only increases our credibility. For many years, the ConVault Licensing network has wondered why UL-142’s are permitted universally. It is apparent that the fire protection and environmental communities have never been exposed to "Paul Harvey’s ‘Rest of the Story’" on unprotected tanks. We have an excellent opportunity to provide that education—let’s coordinate our submittals so that we can properly inform regulators.

Copyright © 1997-2002 ConVault, Inc.