gas storage tanks

Status
Not open for further replies.
jwelectric

jwelectric

Senior Member
Location
North Carolina
Anyone care to comment on this installations. These are for some sort of sensor at the storage tanks for a gas station.

notice the type of box. Any and all comments welcome

whitt9066.jpg
 
IN CLASS 1 DIV 1 ??? jezz i am suprised that dolt is not very bright with it from start .

bell box is not allowed in CL 1 Div 1

it should have a seal off on second box.

the other thing with bell box it will not last very long in the pit just look at other fitting you can see surface rust because with good raining day it can actally fill the pit up nice.

Merci, Marc
 
The bell box is for intrinscally safe wiring coming from a tank monitering system. One manufacturer of said systems will allow a flying splice with no box. See Bell boxes all the time in similar sumps. I don't use them, they don't last
 
Another comment, this pit( which is actually a piping sump) is not supposed to have water in it. If it does a float switch, hooked to the tank monitering system will go into alarm.
 
http://forums.mikeholt.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1406&d=1205883131

That "bell" box is a common practice for intrinscially safe circuits. It looks like there has been water accumulation in the past and someone is installing the sump sensor circuits.

I usually would try to hit a JB outside of the sumps (like at the tank level probe) and loop from that larger box to all the sumps so that only one conduit enters any one sump. It makes it easier to pull the cabling since you only have to loop through 1 box instead of 4 or 5.
 
Last edited:
The American Petrolium Institute publishes a safety procedure for fueling stations.

Safe Work Practices for
Contractors Working at Retail
Petroleum/Convenience Facilities
API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 1646

I recently had to certify on this, and can share some issues with your fuel sump.

Apparantly, a tank top sump or pit is always a confined space, and requires pre-entry qualification, atmospheric tests, LOTO, Baracading, etc.. Further, with pressure regulators and relief valves clearly visible in the photo, it may be a permit required confined space meeting the potential (likelihood) to contain a hazardous atmosphere. A reference is provided: CFR 1910.146

It also appears the corrosion prevention system is not functioning, so the bottom of the tank may be worse. The most common prevention systems are described by API as Non-conductive Coatings, Cathodic Protection, or Dielectric Fittings. Electrical conduit or metal components touching the outside of metal fuel tanks can defeat a cathodic protection system.

If a permit is required locally or by OSHA 1910.146, I suspect ignoring it could be negligent. Completing this job without fixing the corrosion prevention system could also be negligent. If anything goes wrong after a contractor touches this fuel tank, and there was no confined space entry permit / pre-entry checklist record, I suspect such negligence would be liable for permitted rework, tank replacement, 3rd-party injury, or business costs.

This API publication provides sample permit forms, but also claims it doesn't include local or State-specific codes, which must be checked seperately. Information about API Publications, Programs and Services is available on the web at www.api.org
 
Ramsey
Thats a fiberglass sump, most likely on a fiberglass tank. I doubt that any type of corrosion protection is in use
 
Roger,
If anything goes wrong after a contractor touches this fuel tank, and there was no confined space entry permit / pre-entry checklist record, I suspect such negligence would be liable for permitted rework, tank replacement, 3rd-party injury, or business costs.
Click to expand...
The failure to comply with a safety rule has nothing to do with liability for work that was done within the confinded space.
 
Can't liability insurance policies disqualify claims for negligent violation of safety rules? In this case perhaps ignoring the confined space permit, and its checklist of safety rules.

Can't paying twice for same work occur after one law abiding sub-contractor obtains a city permit, or after a neighboring business or losing bidder reports the project to the city, and the inspector walks in and finds fire/safety violations?
 
wallyworld said:
Thats a fiberglass sump, most likely on a fiberglass tank. I doubt that any type of corrosion protection is in use
Click to expand...

I don't see any reference to corrosion prevention for ancilliary equipment or piping, except for reference to steal tanks with sacrificial pieces of metal called anodes. If thats fiberglass I don't see any corossion requirements, unless its local, since this issue is not listed on API's published MULTI-USE PERMIT TO WORK FORM.
 
hardworkingstiff said:
Never mind.
Click to expand...

Too late Stiff. I've already used google satalites to zoom in on your heat signature monkeying around in that sump, and forwarded the GPS coordinates to your local AHJ. ; ) Ok I've had enough fun, I'll get away from the computer and do some real work now.
 
Last edited:
ramsy said:
Can't liability insurance policies disqualify claims for negligent violation of safety rules? In this case perhaps ignoring the confined space permit, and its checklist of safety rules.
Click to expand...
No they can't.
 
ramsy said:
Too late Stiff. I've already used google satalites to zoom in on your heat signature monkeying around in that sump, and forwarded the GPS coordinates to your local AHJ. ; ) Ok I've had enough fun, I'll get away from the computer and do some real work now.
Click to expand...

I can tell you I did not work in that one, but I've worked in hundreds of sumps (feels like thousands). I'm also a licensed and insured fuel system installer (tanks, piping, etc.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top