1982 Fall M e e t i n g

T e c h n i c a l C o m m i t t e e D o c u m e n t a t i o n

TCD-82-F

A Compilation of the Documented Action on Comments Received by the Technical Committees Whose Reports Have Been Published

Prior to Consideration at the NFPA Fall Meeting

The Marriott Hotel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

November 15-18, 1982

Please Bring to the Fall Meeting j

Copyright@ 1982 All Rights Reserved

National Fire Protection Association, Inc. Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269

11M-9-82-SM Printed in U.S.A.

Report of Committee on Liquefied Petroleum Gases

Connor L. Adams, Chairman Mechanical Inspections City of Miami Bldg Dept

W. L. Walls, Secretary National Fire Protection Association

(Nonvoting)

J. A. Cedervall, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. John J. Crowe, Springfield, NJ

Rep. Compressed Gas Assn. Inc. Thomas L. Culbertson, Exxon Research and Engineering

Rep. American Petroleum Institute William H. Doyle, Simsbury, CT H. M. Faulconer, Phillips Petroleum Co.

Rep. American Petroleum Institute Howard J. Haiges Jr, US National Park Service H. T, Jones, Ministry of Consumer & Commercial Relations (Ontario) Hugh F. Keepers, Railroad Commission of Texas Gary Koch, Fisher Cont~ols Co.

Rep. National LP-Gas Assn. Peter H. Kromayer, Bethlehem Steel Corp.

Rep. American Iron & Steel Institute John Kukucka, Suburban Propane Gas Co.

Rep. National LP-Gas Assn. Donald Maddock, Ansul Co.

Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers Assn. E. N. Proudfoot, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Frank E. Rademacher, Industrial Risk Insurers Bruce A. Schwartz, Washington Gas Light Co.

Rep. American Gas Assn. Henry C. Scuoteguazza, Factory Mutual Research Corp. James E. Stockton, James E Stockton & Associates

Rep. Fire Varshals Assn. of North America H. Emerson Thomas, Thomas Associates

Rap. National LP-Gas Assn. J. Herbert Witte, Lincolnwood, IL

Rap. Gas Vent Institute Robert B. Ziegler, Hartford Insurance Group

Rap. American Insurance Assn.

John A. Davenport, Industrial Risk Insurers Alternate to F. E. Rademacher)

C. E. Deering, American Petroleum Institute Alternate to T. L. Culbertson and H. M. Faulconer)

W. John Glidden, Pro-Chem Co., Inc. Alternate to G. Koch)

Lester Hebenstreit, Kidde Bellevil le Alternate to D. Maddock)

Walter H. Johnson, National LP-Gas Assn. Alternate to J. Kukucka & H. Thomas)

Norman O. Nobbe, Insurance Co. of North America Alternate to R. B. Ziegler)

Richard J. Reinbold, Bethlehem Steel Corp. Alternate to P. H. Kromayer)

Nonvoting

L. L. Bergonia, All is Chalmers Corp. Rep. Industrial Truck Assn.

Robert F. Langley, US DOT/Research & Special Programs Admin Rep. Pipeline Safety Reg-US Dept of Transportation

Chappell D. Pierce, US Occupational Safety & Health Admin

This l is t represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred.

The Committee on LiQuefied Petroleum Gases proposes for adoption this Supplementary Report which documents its action on the public comments received on the proposed revision to NFPA 58-1979, Standard on Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1982 Fall Meeting.

This Supplementary Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on LiQuefied Petroleum Gases which consists of 21 voting members; all of whom voted affirmatively on the report as a whole.

Mr. Cedarvall voted negatively on Comment 56 primarily because he feels that there is no assurance that the option in 3515(d)(3) to install an LP-Gas container in the same space occupied by a gasoline tank installed by the vehicle manufacturer will comply with the cri teria in 3515(d)(1)(a) and (d)(2)(a).

105

58- 55 - (2212): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Terry J. Theisen, Anderson, Greenwood and Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-13 RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the proposed wording, but would submit the fol lowing paragraph as the second paragraph in Section 2212:

"On containers of 40,000 gallon water capacity or more, a p i l o t operated pressure sa fe t y - r e l i e f valve in which the major r e l i e f device is combined with and is control led by a sel f actuated, d i rect , spring-loaded r e l i e f valve and w i l l meet the requirements of Table 2-2, may be used." SUBSTANTIATION: Pi lo t operated r e l i e f valves have successfully been used as a standard in the natural gas industry fo r over twenty (20) years. They have had a good history of providing trouble free service in service, for a l l types of applications involving CI - C4 hydrocarbon compounds.

For L.P. gas they are subject to only mechanical f a i l u re or pressure fa i l u re resul t ing from loss of system pressure. Direct spring-loaded valves are also subject to mechanical f a i l u re and require system pressure for actuation.

The p i lo t valve can be supplied with a f i l t e r for the supply source. Generally, L.P. gas is considered a clean service, and i t is the d i r t y and corrosive services that can present a problem to a r e l i e f valve.

The p i l o t operated valves meet the requirements set fourth is ASME, Section VI I I , Division I , la test addenda, and delineated in Paragraph UG-125 and Appendix 3 which applies spec i f i ca l l y to ASME vessels. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add fol lowing to 2212: Exception: On containers of 40,000 gallons water capacity or

more, a p i lo t operated pressure r e l i e f valve in which the r e l i e f device is combined with and is control led by a self-actuated, d i rect , spring-loaded p i lo t valve may be used provided i t complies with Table 2-2, is approved (See de f in i t i on ) , is inspected and maintained by persons with appropriate t ra ining and experience and is tested for proper operation at in tervals n~t exceeding f i ve (5) years. COPMITTEE COMMENT: Needed to more accurately describe types of safety re l i e r valves desired on ASME containers used in ins ta l la t ions covered by NFPA 58. I t is recognized that the somewhat more complex pi lot-operated valves are acceptable provided they are properly approved, inspected, maintained and tested for continuous proper operation.

58- 33 - (Table 3-1, Note (e) to Table 3-1 {New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: H. Emerson Thomas, Westfield, NJ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-20 RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate ent i re new note (e). SUBSTANTIATION: The change in Table 3-I to require distance between a l l containers (aboveground or belowqround) is a good one. By Proposed note (e) we are l imi t ing an underground battery to six containers and then requiring a 25 foot distance between batter ies. There is current ly no battery l im i t for aboveground containers ( i .e . no more than s ix ) , and from a f i r e protection viewpoint no hazard is introduced by having more than six underground containers in one battery grouping. With more than six underground containers in one group, crane access can s t i l l be provided depending on the arrangement and size of individual containers. To mandate a 25 foot separation for access reasons only, is a requirement that could present a hardship depending on the proposed site. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Amend p r o p o ~ Note (e) in i ts ent i re ty to read, "When underground mult i -container ins ta l la t ions are made of individual containers having a water capacity of 125 gallons or more, such containers shall be insta l led so as to permit access at the i r ends or sides to f a c i l i t a t e working with cranes or hoists. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Committee Action appears to be consistent with submitter's intent. F i rs t sentence of Substantiation is not consistent with Recommendation.

58- 3 - (3232, Table 3-3, 366 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Bruce E. Pyden, Rosevil le Fire Department, MN COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-19 RECOMMENDATION: All gas-air mixing equipment shall be separated from any open flame or spark producing Pduipment by a distance of not less than ten f t . Where distance requirements cannot be met or in the case of exist ing ins ta l la t ions, continuous mechanical vent i la t ion , taking suction within six in. of the f l oo r of the gas-air mixing structure, su f f i c ien t to produce four a i r changes per hour, shall he provided. SUBSTANTIATION: I t would seem reasonable that a study period of four years should have been su f f i c ien t time to completely study this problem and either approve the amendment or ehanoe i t to cover this problem which has heen shown to he a serious hazard. An additional study period w i l l only serve to delay adoption beyond a reasonahle time frame.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. I . Amend 3232 by insert ing "and gas-air mixing" between

"LP-Gas" and "sha l l . " 2. Amend Table 3-3 by adding new entry as fol lows: "Gas-air mixing. See 366." 3. Add new Subsection 366 as fol lows: 366 Ins ta l la t ion of Gas-air ~ixers 3660 Gas-air mixing equipment shall be located at least 25 f t

from a d i rec t - f i r ed vaporizer when the mixer is instal led outdoors. I f the mixer is insta l led in a building, the building shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 7 and no d i rec t - f i r ed vaporizer is to be located within the same building enclosure. Such a structure shall be located at least 25 f t from a d i rec t - f i r ed vaporizer.

3661 Listed vaporizer-mixers in a common cabinet having a di rect f i red type vaporizer shall be instal led outdoors in accordance with the distance provisions in 362. Listed vaporizer-mixers not in a common cabinet having an indirect f i red type vaporizer may be insta l led in a building or structure complying with Chapter 7 provided there is no source of igni t ion in such huilding or structure. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Structure vent i la t ion is covered by Chapter 7.

58- 2 - (3250(a)): Accept in Principle SUBPITTER: Bruce E. Ryden, Rosevil le Fire Department, MN ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-33 RECOMMENDATION: The recommended wording is as fo l lows:

"A clearance of rot less than three (3) f t shall be provided between the tank, major piping and equipment and the fence to allow emergency access to the two required means of egress." SUBSTANTIATION: Unless a speci f ic distance is del iniated in the code, i t is d i f f i c u l t to obtain compliance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Amend proposed new thi rd sentence for 3250(a) by insert ing "a clearance of at least three f t shall be provided" between "and" and " to . " COMMITTEE COKMENT: Clearance for access to means of egress requires consideration of impediments at the specif ic ins ta l la t ion which could involve more than those cited in Recommendation.

58- 18 - (3503): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission ~ r ~ PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action change to read:

2503 In the interest of safety, each person engaged either in ins ta l l ing or repair ing, f i l l i n g , or otherwise servicing an LP-Gas engine fuel system on a vehicle shall be properly trained in the necessary procedlJres. SUBSTANTI#TION: To make i t clear that persons repair ing, f i l l i n g , etc. must be properly trained. Also, a person working on any part of the system should be properly trained for the type of work being done. The proposed wording would reduire t ra ining for only

person who works on a vaporizer, regulator, automatic shut o f f , or fuel f i l t e r , since proposed 3513 indicates these are the components that are carburetion equipment." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Amend proposed 3503 to read: "In the interest of safety, each person engaged in ins ta l l ing ,

repair ing, f i l l i n g or otherwise servicing an LP-Gas engine fuel system shall he properly trained in the necessary procedures." COMMITTEE COMMENT: Suhmitter's l im i ta t ion to systems "on a vehiclp" not acceptable because 3503 is applicahle to engines not insta l led on vehicles as well . Change from "carburetion equipment" to "engine fuel system" is substantiated by Comment 6.

58- 6 - (3503): Accept SUBNITTER: Walter H. Johnson, National LP-Gas Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action revise Section 3503 as fol lows:

"In the interest of safety, a l l persons engaged in ins ta l l inq and servicing LP-Gas engine fuel systems shall be properly trained." SUBSTANTIATION: The new wording is more consistent with the scope of th is section. "Carhuretion equipment" is too l imi t ing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Amend 3503 per action on Comment 18.

106

58- 42 - (3510): Accept SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission ~Fd~F#-~N-T--ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, Section 3510 insert the term "multipurpose passenger vehicles" between "taxicabs" and "buses." SUBSTANTIATION: This term is standard nomenclature. I t appears on the federal label permanently af f ixed near the l e f t f ront of the body on many vehicles (usual ly on door hinge post or latch post, i f vehicle has a LF door.) (The federal de f in i t ion of "MPV" was submitted to committee.) COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: For the record, 49 CFR 571.3 defines a multipurpose passenger ~ehicle as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trai ler, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.

58- 19 - (3511(a)(2) and (3)) : Hold fo r Further Study SUBMITTER: Madison Post, l l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, Section 3511(a)(2) and (3) change to read:

(2) A container fabricated to a specif ied edit ion of rule, regulation or code ear l i e r than the current edit ion may be continued in use, in accordance with 1130 and Appendices B and C, on the vehicle on which insta l led but that container must be requal i f ied in conformance with 3511(a)(3) before being insta l led on another vehicle.

13) A used container that has been instal led on a vehicle or any container that has been involved in a f i r e shall have been requal i f ied for continued service before being insta l led, reused, or re insta l led as fo l lows:

a. ASME or API-ASME container NOT involved in a f i r e or a DOT container in accordance with current DOT procedure, regardless of time since qua l i f i ca t ion or requa l i f i ca t ion . (See B-2 in Appendix B.)

b. ASME or API-ASME container involved in a f i re by retesting, using the hyrostatic pressure test of the current ASME code for an LPG container with a design pressure of 250 psig, or a higher pressure where applicable. (See 3511(a)(6), 2111, and Table 2-I.) This retest may be usec i f not involved in a f i r e . SUBSTANTIATION: Old, Lattered, scraped, or gouged containers used on vehicles on the public reads should be phased out of service as the vehicles on which they are insta l led pass out of service UNLESS the container is shown to meet modern strength requirements. NFPA 58 now allows ans ASMF container to be reused forever without MP a specified check of i ts condition. COMMITTEE ACTION: N~ld for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Comment addresses material in the current edition which is not proposed for amendment but which has merely been carried to this section from a general section as an editorial convenience. Comment wil l bP held for further study in a proper general context.

58- 34 - (3511(a)(4) and (6)) : Reject SUBMITTER: Madison Po;t, l l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission ~ N PROPOSAL NO,: 5~-34 RECOMMENDATION: Undo}--Committee Action change to read:

3511(a)(4) pr in t the word "SERVICE" with ALL capital le t ters . 3511(a)(6) pr in t the word "DESIGN" with ALL capital le t ters .

SUBSTANTIATION: Compoqents subject to ASME container pressure are subject to pressures up to 275 psig (250 psig container) or 344 psig (312.5 psig container). However components subject to DOT container pressure are subject to pressures up to 528 psig or higher. (See 3511(a)(4) and (6), 3512(a)(4) and (5), footnote of Table 2-2 and Appendix D, D-012.) These pressures occur whenever the container pressure r e l i e f valve "weeps," " sp l i t s , " or "vents," or is approaching that condition.

Print ing "SERVICE" and "DESIGN" w i l l emphasize for a l l concerned that these are two d i f fe rent kinds of pressures. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMM'ENT: Distinction cited by commentor has been understood by users of NFPA 58 over essentially the entire 50 year history of this standard. I t is applicable to all applications, not just engine fuel ~ystems. Therefore, i f proposal served a useful purpose, i t would require unjustified amendment of the entire standard.

58- 7 - (3511(c)): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Walter H. Johnson, National LP-Gas Association ~ N PROPOSAL N().: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under'-Committee Action add the following additional markings to those required for the container nameplate required in 3511(c):

8. Year of manufac':ure g. Shell thickness head thickness

10. OL OD HD Ii. M a n ~ s Ser--TaT Number 12. "For LP-Gas Onlf"

SUBSTANTIATION: This would incorporate what is currently required on the nameplate by the ASME Code making i t easier for regulatory people to understand. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

I . Add items 8, 9, 10 and 11 to 3511(c) as proposed. 2. Add new Item 12 to 3511(c) to read "ASME Code symbol." 3. Amend 2154 by adding items B, 9, 10, I I and 12 preceding as

items (h), ( i ) , ( j ) , (k) and ( I ) . COMMITTEE COMMENT: Submitter's proposed Item 12 is rejected because i t is not required by the ASME Code and, therefore, not consistent with the Suhstantiation. Committee recommendation for Item 12 reflects Comment 43. Amendment of 2154 needed for editorial correlation.

58- 43 - (3511(c)(2)): Accept SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l ino is Vehicle Safety Commission ZFO-P-~'N'T'-~N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-3~ RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, Section 3511(c)(2) change to reid: ....

(2) Name and address of container manufacturer or trade name of container, serial number, year bui l t , and of f ic ia l ASME code or symbol. SUBSTANTIATION: The change will require information needed for ascertaining and maintaining the Duality of the container. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Action on Comment 7,

58- 20 - (3511(c)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l inois Vehicle Safety 3ommission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, Section 3511(c) change to read:

(c) DOT containers shall be marked in accordance with DOT regulations. These markings shall be readable after the container is permanently installed on a vehicle. ASME containers . . . . so located as to be readable after the container is installed. A portable lamp and mirror may be used when reading markings. SUBSTANTIATION: Person(s) inspecting a vehicle fuel systems shouTd be able to read the required markings without having the container or portion(s) of the vehicle removed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I . Add new ~515(b) to read as follows: "Container markings shall be readable after a ccntainer is

permanently installed on a vehicle. A portable lamp and mirror may he used when reading markings.

2. Renumber proposed 3515(6) through (h). COMMITTEE COMMENT: Suhmitter's f i r s t sentence is covered by 2511~a). Remainder of comment is installation in character and more properly located in 3515.

58- 8 - (3512(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Walter H. Johnson, National LP-Gas Association t~m~'-~N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action in 3512(a) the reference to "220" should be "Section 22." SUBSTANTIATION: This is a typographical error. Container appurtenances should comply with all the provisions of Section 22, not just Paragraph 220. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

58- 44 - (3512(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l ino is Vehicle Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 REEUMMLNUATIUN: Under Committee Action, Section 3512(a) change "220" to "22." SUBSTANTIATION: 3512(a), including paragraphs (i) through (8), does not require installation of a main shutoff valve or a fixed liquid level gage on e container, although performance requirements are given for these appurtenances. The change will include requirements for essential itmes by reference. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

58- 45 - (3512(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l inois Vehicle Safety Commission i~'~)IB~mL~IT-~N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under-Committee Action, Section 3512(a) add a second sentence to read"

"Container appurtenances subject to working pressures in excess of 125 psig but not to exceed 250 psig shall be suitable for a working pressure of at least 250 psia."

107

#UBSTANT!ATION: Cur ren t ly NFPA 58 requires that valves and other equipment used wi th LeG at pressures in excess nf 125 psiq RUT NOT TO EXCEED 250 Dsig shal l be su i tab le fo r a working pressure of at least 25{I psig Iemphasis added). This r#quiremenf appears in RFPA ~8-1979 at 23a1(b) and 2401(b), which are included in 2512~1979] and 3510(b)( ]979) by reference. Proposal 34 would completely e l iminated cons iderat ion of the "but not to exceed 250 p~ g" o rov is ion and would al low any component su i tab le f o r no more than 250 psig w'orking pressure to he used wi th LPG at ANY workinq pressure i f par t of an engine fue l system. Such misuse of any component(s) on a veh ic le should not be condoned hy a nat iona l f i r e p rn tec t ion standard. The added sentence would c l e a r l y requ i re estah] ished precaut lons against use of underrated, under de~ign~J, ( r unsui tahl~ (ompqnents so as NOT tn dpqrade NFPA 58 as appl ied tn engine due] systems. CO~!~IITTEE A['TION: Accept.

COMMENT: Fa i lu re to re ta in e x i s t i n g requirement in r ev i s i on of Section 35 was inadver tent and c l e a r l y not intended.

58- 22 - (351Z(a) (3 ) ) : Hold f o r Fur ther Study SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehic le Safety Commission POMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Un ed'e-F-Committee Act ion, Section 3512(a)(3) add a new sentence to read:

"On a school bus the f i xed l i q u i d leve l gage shal l e i t he r have a tamper proof operat ing head or both the f i xed l i q u i d leve l gage and the f i l l va lve, hut no other valve, shal l b~ in a closed compartment wi th a locking door." SUBSTANTIATIO#;: ~c t i ve , cur ious, or prankster types of school pup i ls are l i k l e y to meddle wi th the " s p i t t e r va lve . " The added sentence w i l l provide f o r lessening or discourapinq such pup i l meddling. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold f o r Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Recommendation is new mater ia l which ~ntroduces a co-'nc-ept which has not had pub l i c review and which w i l l requ i re considerable research and discussion.

5a- 21 - ( 3 5 1 2 ( a ) ( I ) ) : Hold f o r Fur ther Study SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehic le Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 5~-34 RLCO~MENDATION: Under Committee Act ion, Section 3512(a ) [ I ) e l im ina te the word "manual" at the beginning of th i s sect ion. SUBSTANTIATION: The 3512(a ) ( I ) requirements should apply to an automatic shu to f f valve or a combination automatic/manual shu to f f va lve, which are allnwed mR 3515(g). A valve that shuts o f f at cnnta iner when enaine is stopped (or stops) is l i k e l y to be requi red on school buses in order to increase time ava i lab le fo r 75 pup i ls tn l e a w a burning bus hy jumping from or c l imhino down from I rear door. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold f o r Fur ther Study. ~ ~ T : 3512(a)(1) is s t r i c t l y in context of manual valves and would not be completely app l icab le to other types. Cqmment, however, appears to be re la ted to Comment 35 and w i l l be nnnsidered thernwi th .

Be- 35 - ( 3 5 1 2 ( a ) ( i ) ) : Hold f o r Fur ther Ctudy SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehic le Safety Commission COM~'ENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-~4 ~ E ~ N D - A ~ Under Committee AcLion, Section 3512(a)11) add 2 nev: sentences to read:

"On a vehic l~ deslqned to carry 10 persnns or more, i . e . a l~us, and on a veh ic le arranqed f o r car ry ing handicapped persons a shu to f f valve that provides p o s i t i v e c losure when t l 'e enqine l q n i t i o o switch is placed in th~ "OFF" pos i t i on shal l he i ns ta l l ed us clnse to the conta iner as f eas ib l e . Thi~ valve may net he i ns ta l l ed in l ieu of the required manual valve but a combination valvu that prnvideq hnth m~nual and autnmatic pns i t i v~ c lesurp plus e~cess f low shuto f f may he used." SLIBSTI~P~TIATIOh': Rus uphols tery flame re tardant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s#~m to prnvi,fip ~nr f a i r l y rapid i o t e r i q r burn-out when subject to wi~dblowr heat or f lam- f ro~ vapnr iz ing and hurninq LRG and brake f u l i d in the enqine compartment. In 2 cases of LPG powpred ] l l i t n i s school bus f i r e s , wi th quicY r~por t ing and 6-7 minute respnnqn timp~, the bus i n t e r i o r was completely ablaze when responder(s) a r r i ved . Neither d r i ve r closed the manual shu to f f but eac! >~nvmd i a n i t i ~ n te "OFF." (No one was burned - - ~hOLit ?0 pup i ls ~n ] hus - - nnn~ in n the r . )

An autumatl( shu to f f ~t cnn ia ioer can lessen f l oe damage and incrn~se t ime ~v~] lab le fen up tu 75 paqs~nqer ~ te l~ave a ~urninp fuqs -- of ten thrnuoh I ~x~t. COMMITTEF ACTIOn4: FPld f o r F!:rther Study. COMMITTEE CO~ENT: R~ccm~endation is new mater ia l which Intrcduoms a nnncept v hich has not had Dublin r~v~#w and v'hirh w i l l requ l re cnnsid~rable research and discussion.

5{- 1 - (751?(a) (R)) : PejPr t qUBMITTER: G. Mylander, Mylander Controls OOMMENT ON PROPOSAl NO.: 5R-7~ RECOMMENDATION: l ~ r o m m i t t e ~ Act ion, qect ion 3512(a)(3) rev ise ~ect iop tn read:

"Containers sO, a l l b~ f~br ]ca ted so tFey can be equipped wi th a f i xed l i q u i d leve l qage capablp of i nd i ca t i ng the maximum perml t t~d f l l l i n q i~vPl computed in accordance wi th the procpdures rontalnaH in Appendl, E. Ti~e f l u i d ventpd thrnugh thp dane shal l paqs throunh an n r i f l c ~ no la rder than a No. 54 d r i l l s ize. The o r i f i c e sh~l l be enclosed hy the wpldpd- in f i t t i n g on the conta iner . The vent valve may thus incorporate the required n r i f i cm unless i t i~ Yemot, ~ frnm th~ con ta ine r . " SU~STANTIATIfiN: Thp *Pct inns as proposed in the repor t requ i re that a remotely I r ra tod f i xed l i q u i d l~v~l gasp h~ n r i f i c e d sacond~r i lv to the n r i f i r i n g at the conta iner . The spcond o r i f i c e cannot d~p l ica te th~ E lec t ion of the f i r s t and the re fo re should He ~ l im inate "~ a~ ~ roquirempni. COMMITTEE nOTION: R~)~.ct. ~ C O M M E ~ : T : Pemete o r i f i c e is n~eded to l i m i t the rat~ c.t i1isrharqe of Oas a r c u m u l a t e d between the n r i f i c e on fh~ conta iner and the rnmnt~ ~ent valve.

5C- 40 - (3512(a ) (6 ) ) : Reject SUBNITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehic le Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Act ion, Section 3512(a)(6) change to read:

(6) A male thread, or other su i tab le means, shal l be provided on the discharge end of each safety r e l i e f valve to provide f o r securing de f l ec to r or adoption pipe-away to the va l ve ' s outs ide diameter ra ther than to i t s ins ide diameter (see 3515(h).

Renumber e x i s t i n a 3512(a)(6) , (7) , and (8) respec t i ve l y (7) , (8 ) , and (9) . SUBSTANTIATION: An adaptor or de f l ec to r secured, or inser ted, into the ins ide diameter of the r e l i e f va lve 's discharge end must reduce i t s diameter and is l i k e l y to r e s t r i c t f l ow . Also, i t might be screwed, or moved, inwards f a r enough to hamper or prevent outward movement of the r e l i e f valve plunger, or "poppet t . " I f the plunger, or "poppet," contacts the de f l ec to r or adapter when at tempt ing to r e l i e ve pressure i t could tend to act l i k e an "excess f low s h u t - o f f " ra ther than a pressure r e l i e v i n g device. At taching de f l ec to r or adaptor to the outs ide diameter of the r e l i e f valve discharae end w i l l minimize or e l im ina te the chances of these Chinas happening. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. TOMMITTEE COMMENT: qecond sentence of proposed 3515(h)(2) p r o h i b i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n described i f i t does excess ive ly r e s t r i c t f lnw.

58- 23 - (3512(a ) (8 ) ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Wh ie le Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL VO.: 58-34 PECOMMENOATION: Under Committee Act ion, Spction 3517(a)(R) chance to read:

(R) Each fue l conta iner permanently i n s t a l l e d on a vehic le shal l be - - (balance unchanged.) SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed wording would cause tl~is requirement IIOT tn apply to a permanently i n s t a l l e d DOT or other container f a b r i c a t e d n r i p i n a l l y for use as a por tab le conta iner nnr to any used conta iner i ns ta l l ed a f t e r amended Section 35 becomes e f f e c t i v e in 19P3. Devices fo r t h i s automatic p ro tec t ion are ava i lab le now. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Schedule proposed by Committee is bel ieved tn h~ a necessary ~ r a c t i c a l comnrnmise r ~ f l e c t i n o cur ren t ~ t ~ t p - o f - t h e - a r t .

58- 46 - (3513(a) ) : Accent SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehic le Safety Onmmiss~on COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RTCOMMENDATINN: Under Committee Act ion, Section 3513(a) add a sentence to read:

"Carburet ion equipment subject to working pressures in excess of 125 psim hut nnt to exceed 2~Q psia shal l be su i tab le fo r a working pressure of at least 250 ps ig . " SUBSTANTIATION: Current ly ~;FPA 58 requi res that valves and other e -~pment used wi th LPG at pressures in excess of 125 psig BUT NOT TO EXCEED 250 psiq shal l he su i tab le fo r a working pressure of at least 250 psiq (emphasis added). This reauirement appears in NFPA ~ - ] o 7 o at 23a1(b) and 2aOl(b) , which are includ~H in 3512 (IC79] end 3510(h ) ( I f79 ) by reference. Prnposal 3a would completely e l im ina te cons iderat ion of th~ "but net to eyceed 250 psiq" p rov is ion and wnuld a l low any eemponent su i tab le f o r no mere than 2ON pgiq wor~ino pressurp to h~ used wi th LPG at ANY workino pressure i f par t of an ~ngine fue l system. Such misuse of any romponmntIs) on a veh ic le shnuld Pot he condoned by a nat iona l f i r e p ro tec t ion standard. The added sentence would c l e a r l y r~quine ~stabl ished precaut ions against use of underrated, under designed, or unsui tab le components so as NOT to deqrade NFPA 58 as appl ied to engine fue l ~vstems. COMMITTEE ACT[O~I: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Fa i lu re to re ta in e x i s t i n g requirement in r ev i s i nn of Section 35 was inadver tent and c l e a r l y not intended.

108

BP- 47 - (3513(b)(])a): Accept SUBMITTER: Madison Post I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34

I RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee #orion, Section 3Sl3(b)(1)a change to read:

a. The vaporizer proper . . .a t least 260 psig, where working ! pressures do not exceed ;!50 psig, and shall he (balance unchanged.)

SUBSTANTIATION: ?urrent]y NFPA 5£ requires that vale,as and other equipment used with LPG ~t pressures in excess of 125 psig BUT NOT TO EXCEED 250 psiq shall be suitable for a working pressure of at least 250 psig (emphasis added). This requirement appears in NFPA 5g-1979 at 2341(b) and 2401(b), which are included in 3512 (1979) and 3510(b)(1979) by reference. Proposal 34 would completely eliminate consideration of the "but not to exceed 250 psig" provision and would allow any compnnent suitable for no more than 250 psig working pressure to he used with LPG at ANY working pressure i f part of an engine fuel system. Such misuse of any component(s) on a vehicle should not be condoned by a national f i r e protection standard. The added sentence would c lear ly require estab]ished precautions against use of underrated, under designed, or unsuitable components so as NOT to degrade NFPA 58 as applied to engine fuel systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment 46.

58- 50 - (3E1a(c)(1)a.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Padison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-3a RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, Section 3514(c)( i )a . I change to read:

1. Fi t t ings used wi th. . .ovPr 125 psig, where working pressures dn not exceed 250 psig, shall be suitable for a working pressure of at least 250 psig. SUBSTANTIATION: Currently NFPA 58 requires that valves and other equipment used with LPG at pressures in excess of I75 psig BUT NOT TO EXCEED 250 psig shall be suitable for a working pressure of at least 250 psig (emphasis added). This requirement appears in NFPA 58-1979 at 22aICb) and 2401(b), which are included in 3512(1979) and 3510(b)(197oI by reference. Proposal 34 would completely eliminate consideration of the "but not to exceed 250 psig" provision and would allow any component suitable for no more than 250 psig working pressure to be used with LPG at ANY working pressure i f part of an enoine fuel system. Such misuse of any component(s) on a vehicle should not be condoned by a national f i r e prntection ~tandard. The added sentence would c lear ly reauire established precautions against use of underrated, under designed, or unsuitable components so as NOT to degrade NFPA 58 as applied to engine fuel systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

58- 9 - (3513(d)): Accept SUBMITTER: Walter H. Johnson, National LP-Gas Association COMPENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action revise the f i r s t sentence of 3513(d) as fo l lows:

r "An approved automatic shutoff valve shall be provided in the I fuel system as close as pract ical to the in let of the gas ! regulator.

SUBSTANTIATION: This cilange w i l l help to insure that the vacuum lockoff ' device is located as close as pract ical to the regulator, rather than permitting its placement anywhere in the l ine. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

58- 2a - (351a(c)( l )a.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety [ommission 7~TFF~Tq~.N PROPOSAL NO.: 5R-3a RECOMMENDATION: Under Comment Action, Section 351L(c)(1)a.3 change to read:

3. Soldering or brazing f i l l e r material shall have a melting point exceeding ]O00°F. ~UBSTANTIATION: 3514(c)(I)a.3 would a11ow use of very low melting solders, including eutectic mi×utres. The recommended change would provide for engine fuel systems the same protection that 2330(a)(4) provides for other systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

58- 48 - (3514(a)(2)): Reject SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under 2ommittee Action, Section 3514(a)(2) change to read:

(2) For LP-Gas vapor...LP-Gas l iqu id , where working pressures do not exceed 250 psig, the pipe shall be Schedule RO or heavier. Ibalance unchanged) SUBSTANTIATION: Currently NFPA 5~ requires that valves and other equipment used with LPG at pressures ip excess of 125 psig BUT NOT TO EXCEED 250 psig shall be suitable fo r a working pressure of at least 250 psig (emphasis addpd). This remuirement appears in NPPA 58-1979 at 2341(h) and 2401(b), which are included in 3512 (1979) and 3510(b)(1979) by reference. Proposal 34 would completely eliminate consideration of the "hut not to exceed 250 psig" provision and would allow any comDonent suitable for no more than 250 psig working pressure to be used with LPG at ANY working pressure i f part of an engine fuel system. Such misuse of any component(s t on a vehicle should not be condoned by a national f i r e protection standard. The added sentence would c lear ly require established precautions against use of underrated, under designed, or unsuitable components so as NOT to degrade NFP# 5£ as applied to engine fuel systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Recommendation would create a void for c--overage ahove 750 psi( . Committee proposal is adequate for any working pressure in an engine fuel system.

58- 49 - (3514(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: Madison Pout, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECI]MMENDATION: Under-Committee Action, Section 3514(b) add a sentence to read:

Tubing subject to working pressures in excess of 125 psig but not to exceed 250 psig shall be suitable for a working pressure of at least 250 psig. SUBSTANTIATION: Curreqtly NFPA 58 reouires that valve~ and other equipment used with LPG at pressures in excess of 125 psig BUT NOT TO EXCEED 250 psig shall be suitable fo r a working pressure of at least 250 psig (emphasis added). This requirement appears in NFPA 58-1979 at 2341(b) and 2aOl(b), which are included in 3512(1979) and 351D(b)(1979) by reference. Proposal 34 would completely eliminate consideration cf the "but not to exceed 250 psig" provision and would allow any component suitable fo r no more than 250 psig working pressure to be used with LeG at ANY working pressure i f part of an engine fuel system. Such misuse of any component(s) on a wh i c l e should not be condoned by a national f i r e protection standard. The added sentence would c lear ly require established precautions against use of underrated, under designed, or unsuitable components so as NOT to degrade NFPA 58 as applied to engine fuel systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. "~OI~MITTEE'COMMENT: Tubimg specified in proposal is considered suitabIe for any pressure encountered in an engine fuel system.

58- 5] - (351m(d)(1)a): Hold for Further Study SUBMITTER: Wadison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission C'Q-OHMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: UnBer Committee Action 3514(d)(l)a change " . . . l O - f t in terva ls . " to read " . . . 1 - f t intervals or c loser." ~UBSTANTIATION: The " lO- f t " requirement can resul t in g - f t or longer, lenoths of hose without the "LPG" marking. Most persons probably w i l l not destroy, scrap, or salvage lengths of unmarked LPG hose. Vehicle systems are l i ke l y to be assembled with unmarked short lengths of hose. The practice of ins ta l l i no unmarked hose can lead to accidental, careless, or intentiona] use of hose NOT suitable for use witP LP. Inspectors or others might require reolacement of unmarked hose. Parking at l - f t or closer intervals w i l l help eliminate controversies, contests, waste, and other d i f f i cu l~ ies . COMMITTEE ACTIOrZ: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Recommendation is new material which introduces a eoncPpt which has net had public review and which w i l l reauire considerable research and discussion.

58- 2S - (3514{d){])b}: Hold for Further Study SUBMTTTER: Padison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission ~ N PPOPOSAL NO.: 5P-34 PECO~VENDATINN: Under Committee Action, Section 251a(d)(1)h change second to read:

"When a test is made, such assemblies shall be leak tested at the working pressure of the hose (see 3514(d)(1)a); provided, however, when such assemblies are in an isolated section they shall be leak tested at the highest pressure at which a hydrostatic r e l i e f valve for that section may he set (see 3517(g)) and when such assemblies are NOT in an isolated section hut ar~ subject to container pressure they shall he leak tested at 110% of the s tar t - to- lea~ pressure marked on the container pressure r e l i e f valve i f this pressure is higher than the working pressure of the hose (se~ footnote of Table 2-2 and D-el2 in Appendix D), SUBSTANTIAT:ON: A leak test should prove each connection and hose assembly is capable nf withstanding, without leaking, the pressure to which i t may he subjected on the vehicle or the working pressur# of the hos# used, whichever is higher. I f pressure higher than the working pressure of the hose w i l l damage hose connection or assembly, NFPA 5R is remiss in not requirinq replacement of affected hose assembly(ies) whenever a hydrostatic r e l i e f valvp functions or whenever the pressure r e l i e f valve "weeps," "sp i ts , " or "blows" on a OOT container or other container with r e l i e f valve allowino container pressures higher than the working pressure of the hose ( i . e . , container pressures up to 528 psi9 - - See App. O, DO]2, & footnote of Table 2-2). COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COVMENT: See Comment 51.

109

58- 3B - (3515(a)): Hold fo r Further Study SUBMITTER: Bryan S. Memmott, East Coast Propane Conversions, Inc. ~ N PROPOSAL NO,: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: I am very pleased with the proposed amendment of ~ 3 5 . I t should bring us into l ine with our counterparts in other countries, and great ly improve our safety standards - especial ly in the area of ins ta l l ing and f i l l i n g motor fuel tanks. Agree whole heartedly with Committee comments on r e l i a b i l i t y of automatic stop f i l l i n g devices.

Under Committee Action, the last sentence of 3515(a) should require a specif ic distance. SUBSTANTIATION: The last sentence of 3515(a) does not specify at what distance from exhaust system or engine a heat shield should be insta l led. I t is l e f t to the individual to determine how near is near. Is i t one ( i ) inch, six (6) inches, or twelve (12) inches? This leaves too much to the ins ta l le rs discret ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment 51.

58- 14 - (3515(c)): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Walter H. Johnson, National LP-Gas Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 ~ECOPMENDAIION: Under-committee Action, insert "on roofs, or" in 3515(c) making i t read:

"(c) Containers shall not be mounted on roofs, or ahead of the f ront axle or beyond the rear bumper of vehicles and no part of a container or i ts appurtenances shall be above the highest level of the vehicle roof . " SUBSTANTIATION: While no part of a container or i ts appurtenances #hnuld be project above the highest level of a vehicle roof, i t is not intended that the container be instal led on the roof of a cah of vehicle with a cargo cnmpartment having a higher roof l ine. The roofs of cahs do not provide suf f ic ient supporting means for engine fuel tanks. EOMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Amend proposed 3515(c) to read: "Containers shall not be mounted d i rec t l y on roofs or ahead of

the front axle er heynnd the rear bumper of vehicles. So as to I minimize the poss ib i l i t y of physical damage, no part of a , container or i ts appurtenances shall protrude beyond the sides nr i top of the vehicle at the point where i t is instal led.

COMMITTEE COMMENT: Recommendation amended to take into account that some vehicles - e.9., cargo vehicles - may have roofs that have a "highest level" higher than the roof is at the point where the container is instal led. A container instal led lower than the highest level could then be vulnerable to damaqe from tree limbs or during automatic washing by machine.

58- 32 - (2515(c)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William B. McHenry, Pro-Gas Sales and Service Co. COT, MENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: BB-3a RECOMMENDATION: Revis-e NFPA Committee Action amendment on 3515(c) to read:

"Containers shall qot be mounted ahead of the front axle or beyond th~ rear bumper of vehicles and no part of a container or i ts appurtenances shall be above the highest level of the vehicle BODY." SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee comment (TCR Page 164) recognizes that containers may he instal led above roofs of some vehicles i f vehicle configuration permits.

Without the above suggested chanqe, or i ts equivalent, confusion would s t i l l exist as to the intent of the proposed amendment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment 14.

58- 56 - (3515(d)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William J. 8ohan, Ford Motor Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action delete Dromosed 3515(d) and, as an interim measure pending preparation of a more suitable provision, ei ther retain current 3812(a) nr adopt the fol lowing modif ication of proposed 3515(d):

(d) Containers shall be instal led with as much road clearance as practicable. Road clearance shall be measured when the vehicle is under f u l l rated load and is standing on a f l a t surface. Clearance shall be measured from that surface to the lowest point on the container, i ts f i t t i n g s , supports or the container housing, "whichever is lowest," and shall not he less t~an "the minimum stat ic clearance under f u l l rated load of any other component of the vehicle." SUBSTANTIATION: For the reasons set for th below, proposed 35]E(d)(]) and (2), i f adopted, would apparently be inapplicable to passenger cars of the kind current ly being manufactured by Ford Motor Company (Ford). In addition, the proposal f a i l s to take into account the various factors which must be considered in establishing appropriate ground clearances for vehicles, and hence, in some instances, would, i f adopted, impose impracticable reoulrement~ on manufacturers.

Ford has not been able to prepare in the very l imited time available to i t , an a l ternat ive proposal with which i t is en t i re ly sat is f ied. Ford proposes, as an interim measure, ei ther retention of current Section 3812(a) or adoption of the provision set for th above. Ford would he happy to cooperate in the preparation of a more suitable substitute for proposed Sections 3515(d)(I) and (2).

(Additional documentation was submitted, including drawings, to support a view that proposed 3515(d) is both inadeGuate and overly r e s t r i c t i v e . ) COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Amend TCR to read as fol lows: 3515(d) Containers shall be instal led with as much road

clearance as practicable. This clearance shall be measured to the bottom of the container or the lowest f i t t i n g , support or attachment on the container or i ts housing, i f any, whichever is lowest, as fol lows:

I . Containers instal led between axles shall comply with 3515(d)(1)(a) or 3515(d)(3).

(a) Be not lower than the lowest of the fol lowing points: Thp lowest point forward of the container on: ( i ) the lowest structural component of the body; ( i i ) the lowest structural component of the frame or subframe, if(any; i i i ) the lowest point on the engine;

( iv ) the lowest point on the transmission (including the clutch housing or torque converter housing, as applicable),

and not lower than a surface defined by two intersecting planes, the f i r s t plane being defined by the fol lowing three points:

( i ) the intersection of (a) a ver t ica l plane paral le l to and midway between the axles of the vehicle and (b) the lowest point of the vehicle intercepted by that plane;

( i i ) the perpendicular prnjection from the center of the end of the axle of the front r ight wheel to a horizontal plane surface beneath and in contact with the f ront r ight t i r e , and

( i i i ) the perpendicular projection from the center of the end of the axle of the f ront l e f t wheel to a horizontal plane surface beneath and in contact with the f ront l e f t t i r e ,

and the second plane being definpd by ( i ) said intersection; [ i i ) the perpendicular project ion from the center of the end of

the axle of the rear r ight wheel to a horizontal plane surface beneath and in contact with the rear r ight t i r e , and

( i i i ) the perpendicular projection from the center of the end of thp axle of the rear l e f t wheel to a horizontal plane surface beneath and in contact with the rear l e f t t i re .

Where there are two or more rear axles, the projections shall be made from the frontmost one of them.

?. Containers instal led behind the rear axle and extendlng belnw the frame shall comply with 3515(d)(2)(a) or 3515(d)(3).

(a) Be not lower than the lowest of the fol lowing points: The lowest point on ( i ) the lowest structural component of the body, forward of the

container; ( i i ) the lowest point, forward of the container, on the engine; ( i i i ) the lowest point, forward of the container, on the

transmission (including the clutch housing or torque converter housing, as applicable),

and not lower than a surface defined by the fol lowing three points;

( i ) the perpendicular project ion from the center of the end of the axle of the r ight rear wheel to a horizontal plane surface beneath and in contact with the r ight rear t i r e .

{ i i ) the perpendicular projection from the center of the end of the axle of the rear l e f t wheel to a horizontal plane surface Beneath and in contact with the rear l e f t t i r e , end

( i i i ) the i n i t i a l point of structural interference rearward of ei ther rear t i r e to grnund.

Where there are two or more rear axles, the projections shall be madw from the rearmost one of them.

3. Within the space in which the nr ig inal manufacturer of the vehicle instal led the LP-Gas container. Where an LP-Gas container is suhstituted for the container for a fuel other than LP-~as which had been instal led by the or ig inal manufacturer of the vehicle, the LP-Gas c~ntainer must f i t within the ~pace in which the or ig inal fuel container was instal led. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The amendment to the TCR proposal basical ly adapts Society of Automotive Engineers clearance c r i t e r i a for l iouid fuel containers on vehicles to LP-Gas containers. While mere complex than the TC~ proposal, i t is amreed that the la t te r was inadequate for some vehicle desions and overly conservat iw for others.

BS- 10 - (3515(d)): Peject SUZMITTER: Walter H. Johnson, National LP-Gas Association (~T~-#-~N'~"-6N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action in 3515(d) insert "(GVV!)" fo~lowinp " f u l l rated load" SUBSTANTIATION: "GVW," gross vehicle weight, is marked on the ~ i c l e and provides an easier reference for regulatory e f f i c i a l s . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See rnnmmnt 56.

110

58- 26 - (3515(d)(3)(New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Madison Post, l l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, Section 3515{d) add a new section to read:

(3) "Ful l rated load" means ei ther the weight load with f u l l capacity of each f l u id , plus maximum rated cargo load in each cargo space, plus 150 pounds in each passenger and dr iver space (120 pounds in each pupil space in a school bust or, a l te rna t i ve ly , the vehicle loaded to the maximum gross axle weight rat ing (GAWR) of each axle simultaneously. SUBSTANTIATION: Various persons have d i f fe ren t concepts of what " f u l l rated load" means. For example, in I l l i n o i s i t tends to depend upon the money spent for reg is t ra t ion plates. The added paragraph w i l l prevent misunderstandings and controversies or contests stemming from misunderstandings. COMMITTEE ACTION: Peje(t. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment 56.

58- 57 - (3515(h)( I ) ) : Reject SUBMITTER: William J. E;ohan, Ford Motor Co. COMN'ENT ON PROPOSAL NO. 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, Section 3515(h)(i) revise as fol lows:

(1) The r e l i e f valve discharge on fuel containers on vehicles shall be "to the outside of any enclosed space and as far as practicable from possible sources of igni t ion, and shall be located in such a manner as to prevent impingement of propane upon a fuel container or vehicle. A rain cap or other protector shall he used where required. ' SUBSTANTIATION: Ford i~ unaware of any information that would demonstrate that any par t icu lar discharge angle or discharge direct ion of a r e l i e f v~Ive would be safer than any other angle or d i rect ion. Moreover, the upward direct ion for vent discharge proposed in 3515(h)(I) : on f l i c t s with the downward direct ion proposed by Transport Canada for propane-fueled vehicles intended For sale in Canada. Because Ford manufactures propane-fueled vehicles for d is t r ibu t ion in both the United States and Canada, conf l ic t ing speci f icat ions for the direct ion of discharge from a r e l i e f valve, i f unreconciled, w i l l be of considerable concern to Ford. Not only w i l l these conf l i c t ing requirements burden Ford with the expense of huilding d i f fe ren t propane fuel systems for some states and Canada; they also may give r ise to undesirable conf l i c t ing inferences as to which ventina direct ion is safer. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~ Amend proposed 3515(h) ( I )by insert ing "other than passenger cars" between "vehicles" and "sha l l , " insert ing "discharge" between "or" and " ins ide," and deleting "or luqgaae."

(2) Add a new second sentence to read, "On passenqer cars, the r e l i e f valve discharge on fuel containers shall be directed upward within 450 of ver t i ca l so that gas may not be discharaed inside of the passenger or lucgage compartment and so that any gas released w i l l not impinge upon a container, part of the vehicle or on an adjacent vehicle." COMMITTEE COMMENT: Committee Action reverts to exist ino provisions (3812(d)(3) and 3~14(a){2)) in NFPA 5g-io79 ( e d i t o r i a l l y amended t(, be consistent with proposal) for oassenger cars pending fur ther study. Further ed i to r ia l amendment re f lec ts Comment 39.

58- 39 - (3515(h)(1)): Accept i r Part SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission ~ N PROPOSAL NO,: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: UnderCommittee Action, Section 3515 (h ) ( l ) change to read:

(17 The r e l i e f va lw~. . .o f ver t ica l so that gas may not be discharged inside of the passenger or luggage compartment and so

that any gas released 'will not impinge upon a container, or part of the vehicle, or on ~n adjacent person or vehicle. SUBSTANTIATION: To establ ish that a discharge arrangement v io lates 3515(h)(i) i t w i l l be necessary to show that released gas w i l l impinge d i rec t l y onto TWO or more containers, or persons, or vehicles or w i l l impin?e d i rec t l y onto the in te r io r of a compartment. The changed wording w i l l disal low impingement on ANY ONE container, person, or vehicle and w i l l disal low the gassin 9 of a passenger or luggage compartment even though the gas would not IMPINGE d i rec t l y onto the in te r io r of that compartment. (Note that "impinge" implies " s t r i k e . " } COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

See Comment'57 COMMITTEE COMMENT: Accepted completely in context of f i r s t sentence and pa r t i a l l y in context of new second sentence.

SUBSTANTIATION: The new 3515(h)(I), as proposed, has the potential to ~reate more problems than i t w i l l re l ieve.

New, important information on r e l i e f valve pipe-a~ay adapters and rest r ic ted f low character is t ics of discharge l ines necessitatates more study to determine the safest method of venting product from an activated fuel container r e l i e f valve.

Therefore, the whole issue of r e l i e f valve discharge on motor vehicles should be returned to the NLPGA T & S Committee unt i l a more comprehensive, substantive change can he proposed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Retention of 3812(d)(3) in 1979 edit ion accomplished by action on Comment 57 for passenger cars only. For other vehicles, Committee feels i ts proposal is prcper and pract ical of achievement. See Comment 13 for coverage of adapters. When addit ional information is avai lable, fur ther characterizat ion of discharge lines can be made i f necessary.

5g- 13 - (3515(h)(2) and ( ] } ~ p t SUBMITTER: Walter H. Johnson, National LP-Gas Association ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, make the second sentence cf 3515(h)(2} a new Section 3515[h)(3) and add arew sentence to 3515(h)(2) so that these two sections would read:

"3515(h)(2) Safety r e l i e f valve discharge l ines shall be metal l ic and have a meltinq point over 150Q°F (816°C). Discharge lines and adaptors shall be sized, located and secured so as to minimize the poss ib i l i t y of physical damage and to permit su f f i c ien t safety r e l i e f valve discharge capacity. When the r e l i e f valve discharge must he piped away from the container, the r e l i e f valve sha]] be f i t t ed with an approved break-away type adaptor or desioned such that in the event of exce,;sive stress the piping w i l l break away without impairing the function of the r e l i e f valve. Flexible metal h<~se or tubing used sh~]l be ahle to withstand the pressure from the r e l i e f vapor discharoe when the r e l i e f valve ]s in f u l l open posit ion. A means sh] l i he provided (such as loose f i t t i n g caps} to minimize the poss ib i l i t y of the entrance of water or d i r t into either the r e l i e f valve or i ts discharge piping. The protecting means shall remain in place except when the r e l i e f valve operates. In this event, i t shall permit the r e l i e f valve to operate at su f f i c ien t capacity."

"3515(h)(31 Rel ief valve adaptors instal led d i rec t l y in the r e l i e f valve to def lect #he flow upward shall be metal l ic and have a melting point over 70hUE (371° r ) . '' SUBSTANTIATION: This addition c l a r i f i e s the type of adaptor to he used on remote oiping nf the r e l i e f valve. The new section (h)(3) is an existi~m provision hut separated here as ] t actual ly refers to de~lectors. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

58- 27 - (3515{h)(2)): Accept i r Part SUBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle S~fety Commission

ON PROPOSAL NO.: 5B-34 ~ECON#ENDATION: Under-Committee Action, Section 3515(h)(2) change third sentence so last portion w i l l read as fol lows:

"Ofscharge...te permit the rate of f low requirec by 2211, 2213(a), and Appendix D (D-012, 0-111, & Table D-I . ) "

Add a tahle or chart showing the minimum inside diamter of pipe or tubing for various lengths of pipe nr tubing, plus eauivalent lengths of bends, f i t t i n g % f l ex i h l e tubing, etc. , that is needed to permit the flow rates required for the containers and valves used on vehicles,

In last sentence: Change "su f f i c ien t " to "reouired."

SUBSTANTIATIPN: Discharge capacity requirements are too subjective, vague , or equivocal and are p rac t i ca l l y unenforceable. Many persons consider tl~e discharge pipe-away ( l ine (s) adapter(s), etc.) to permit su f f i c ien t discharge capacity i f " i t ' l l ao out." The sugo~sted chanoes are intended tn prevent the pipe-away res t r i c t i no f low helow necessary rates. Thi~ prevention is especi~l ly needed on the long ~nd often crooned to- roof - top r e l i e f valve pipe-away systems instal led to meet ~515(h)(i) and other safety considerations and re~]uirements for school buses. There seems to he no point in stating a valve re l iev ing capacity in 221 and Appendix D, and mar<ins this on the valve, when there is on e f fec t ive control over the flow res t r i c t i on imposed by the r e l i e f valve pipe-away system. rOMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

Chanoe "su f f i c ien t " to "required in two places." COMMITTEE COMMENT: Remainder of comment is new m.~terial which wi l l reouire cnnsiderahle research and discussion. Held for further study. I t is noted, however, that the capacities of avai lable r e l i e f valves are not i n f i n i t e l y variable and that the valve actual ly instal led may he larger than that required for the container.

58- 31 - (3515(h)( I } ) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: William B. McHenry, Pro-Gas Sales and Service Co. C O ~ N PROPOSAL NC.: 58-3a RECOMMENDATION: UndeY-Committee Action delete Section 3515(h)(I) as proposed.

The section should te replaced with the retention of NFPA 58/197Q, Section 3812(d)(3)h.

111

5t- 53 - (3516(a)(1) and (2)) : Reject SUBMITTER: ~'adison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 PECOMMENBATIFlN: Under Committee Action, Sectinn 3516(a)11) and ~ ) rhanqe tn read:

( I ) Lncating the container...and which i~ vented downward from the lowest area of the structure to outside the vehicle." SH~STANTIATION: qafety n~c~mmendatiens of the NI_PGA should not be overlooked, this change w i l l make NFPA 5B compatih!e with the iI1u<tratinn~ i r I'Ventinq of Sealed container Spar~s" nm the ~ecend paqe of ~LPGA a-page pamphlet B03-79, "~af~tv /nnsidFratinns For Cnnvertinq Passenaer Farrvino Vehicles and Trucks From Gasoline Tn LP-Gass," a.v. C@MMITTE[ ACTION: Peiect. rPMMIITEE CO~FNT; Comment is not pract ical 1el E'Pry q-n-~tallations. For example, an enclosure complying with proposed PElf(a)(9) iq ~ sm~ll nnc rn : l (s ing only ccnta~rer ~ppurten~nc~s and a portion of the tnp nf the container comprises the "lowest area of t l~ structure." In trunks (3516(a)( I ) ) , th~ lowest area is often in a spare wheel well and is blocked by the t i re . The Frmmittee is informed that NLPCA is revisinq hu l le t in ~03-7 e.

58- 28 - rg516(b)): Accept SUBMI%TER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, Section 351~(h) add a parenthetical note at end as shown:

{b) Fuel conta iners. . .o f the vehicle (see 3512(a)(?)). SUBSTANTIATION: 3516(b) seems to allow the douhle hackflnw checV valve to be instal led at the outside of the vehicle. The reference to 3512(a)(2) should make i t clear that a double backflow check valv~ must be instal led inside the f i l l npeninq of the container. COMMITTEE AFTION: Accept. ---~nsert, "~ee 3fi12(a)(~l" at end of parenthetical words.

58- 15 - (3B16(d)]: Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: George A. Hall , LP-Gas Equipment Corporation

fiN PROPOSAL NO.: 5P-3a RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, revise Section 3516(d) to read as fol lows:

3516(d) Enclosures, structures, seals and cn~dult~ used to vent enclosures shall he fabricated of durable materials, res is t damaae or dislodgement through movement of ar t ic les carried in the vehicle or by th~ rlnsinn of luggage compartment enclnsure or vehicle doors, and shall require the use of tools for removal. The access opening to the main shutoff valve shall not requir~ the use of tools for removal. SUBSTANTIATION: 2filE{q) Reads "Main shutoff valves on a container for l iquid and vapor shall be readi ly accessible or other means shall be provided tn shut o f f the container valves."

I f tools are required as in 3516(d) the main shutoff valve would not be readi ly aceessihle. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. ~mend 351~(g) by insert inq "without the use ~f tools" between "accessible" and "or . " COMMITTEE COMMENT: Ed i to r i a l l y , recommendatinn helnngs in 3BIB(g) rather than (d).

SUBSTANTIATION: 3517(h) reouires protection against abrasion or damaee due to vibrat ion in each place where the piping is ( I ) outside, (2) under the vehicle, and (3) below insulation or fals# bottom but in NO place where ALL 3 of these co~ditions dn not avis: . The changed paragraph is intended to remove this l imi ta t ion of protection aqainst abrasion, chaff ina, etc. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

&men~ per Corrmnent except insert "damage due tn v ib ra t in r or" between "prevent" and "abrasinn" and end the sentence with "abrasion." rOMKITTEE COMMENT: Puhbin9 is not a prohlem unless i t produce~ ahrasinn.

~ - 11 - (3517(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Walter H. Johnson, ~ational LP-Gas ~ssociation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOVMEND#~ION: Under Committee Action revise 3517(b) to read:

"Piping (including hose) shall he instal led in a protected Inca:ion. I f outside, pipina shall be under th~ vehicle and below any insulation or false hnttom. Fastening or other protection qhall hp instal led te prevent abrasinn or damag~ due to v ibrat ion. At each point where piping passes throuah sheet metal or a structural memher...(no rhanae in remaining wording)" SUBSTANTIATION: An ed i te r ia l change to make i t more easi ly understood. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment 2 ° .

58- 30 - (3517(d)): Hold for Further Study SUBPITTER: Madisom Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 5£-34 PECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, Section 3517(d) add a second sentence to read:

"As evidence of adequate protection against exter ior corrosion th~ pipine system, or any pnrtion or Section of the piping system assembled and coated or f inished as on the vehicle, when subjected t n a 1000 hour salt spray test of i ts exter ior in accordance with Standard ANSl Z 118.1-197a "Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testinq" (ASTK B ]17-73) shall not exhibi t more than 10% redHction in weight af ter al l adherent corrosion products are removed." SIIBSTANTIATION: 3517{d) is toe subjective. The added sentence w i l l c l a r i f y what is meant by "corrosion-resistant" and "adeouately protected." It w i l l pstabl]sh a hasis for ohtainina adeauate corrosion resistance and fe res ta l l i ng use of extremely thin or " f lash plated" coatinqs of material claimed to "adequately protect." The 1000 hour salt spray test is the requirement which fasteners, materials, nr sections of body in school bus are reauired to meet.

The NFPA might prefer to estahlish corrosion resistance equivalent to automotive hydraulic brake tubing resistance (soci ty of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J i047 with pressure adjustments and provision far testing f i t t i n g s in exposed portion nf test specimen, where p~rt inent). In any ca~e, show an objectlve requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Recommendation is new material which introduces a concept which has not had puhlic review and which w i l l require considerable research and discussion.

58- 52 - (3516(d)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Madison Pest, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety rornmissinn COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Actinn, Sectlon 2516(d) chanae to reaH:

(d) Fnclosures, strurtures . . . . res is t damaq~, blockade, nr dislodgment throuqh. . . for removal. SUBSTANTIATION: Steps should he taken tn prevent a r t i c le (s ) blocking or plugging the vent(st located lO the low seetionIs) of enclosure of structure. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Amend 3516(d) hy replacing the f i r s t comma in the serond l ine with "and be designed to" and inserting ", hlnckaaP" hetwepn "damage" and "or." COMMITTEE COMMENT: Accepted with ed i to r ia l chanae.

5B- 29 - (3517(b)): Accept in Part %UBMITTER: Madison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety [ommission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 5B-34 FLCUMMENDATION: Under Committee Action, Section 3517(b) change to read:

(b) Piplnq (including hose) shall be instal led in a protected location. I f outside, piping shall he under the vehicle and helow any insulation or false bottom. Fastening or other protection shall he inst~l led to prevent abrasion or damaqe du~ to v ibrat ion or "rubbing." At each pniot where pipina p~ss~s throuqh sheet metal n r a ~tructural member a rubber qrommet or equivalent protection shall be instal led to prevent chaffinm.

EB- 36 - (3517(g)): Reject SUBMITTER: ~'adison Post, I l l i n o i s Vehicle Safety Commission COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-3a RECOMMENDATION: Un ea-#r-rnmmittee Actlon, Section 3517(g) add a provision at end of second sentence as fo l lows:

"This hydrostat ic. . . than 50N psi9; provided, however, in a system with a DOT container, or other hiah pressure container having a pressure r e l i e f valve marked with a s tar t - to- leak sett inq of 360 or more psiq, each of these hydrostatic r e l i e f valves in piping subject to container pressure shall have a pressure set t le 9 not less than 125% of the s tar t - to- leak pressure marked on the container pressure r e l i e f valve, but no more than 600 psia. (See footnote of Table 2-2 and D-012 in Appendix D.)" SUBSTANTIATION: # hydrostatic r e l i e f valve with a pressure sett ina in the lower portions of the l imi ts allowed in 3517(g) can vent LeG before the DOT container's pressure r e l i e f valve opens. (See D-012 in Appendix D and footnote of Table 2-2). The LPG vented from the bydrostat(s) usually w i l l not be. . . "d i rected upwards with 15 n, etc." (See 3515(h)(1)) and could create a f i r e aggravating or dangerous conditinn. The added provision w i l l tend to insure that the hydrnstatIs) vent only the small volumes trapped in isolated section(s). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMEnt: Rel ief valves on ASME containers in engine fuel systems must start- to-discharqe at no higher than about 344 nsi (including plus manufacturing tolerance.) While a DOT ~pecif icat ion container iS permitted to have a 480 psi sett ing (ahove the 400 psi minimum stipulated in 3517{g) for a hydrostatic r e l i e f valve), in practice they are set for 375 psi. Moreover, i, ydrostat ic r e l i e f valves in this service are customarily set for ~ 0 psi. gornmittee is u~aware of the s i tuat ion postulated ever havieo occurred in an enuine fuel ins ta l la t ion . Proposed 3517(o) is not a chanqe from the exist ing edi t ion.

112

5B- 12 - (3518(c)): Accept SUBMITTER: Walter H. Johnson, Natlonal LP-Gas Assoclatlon COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Actlon, change 3518(c) to read:

"The gas regulator and the approved automatic shutoff valve shall be installed as follows:" SUBSTANTIATION: The text of this section relates to installation of gas regulators and automatic shutoff valves, not to carburetion equipment. CO#iMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

58- 16 - (3525(b)(2)): Hold for Further Study SUBMITTER: George A. Hall, LP-Gas Equipment Corporation COMME~N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Change the last sentence to read:

"The total water capaclty of each fuel container on an ~ndividual truck shall not exceed 105 pounds (nominal 45 pounds LP-Gas capaclty.) SUBSTANTIATION: I believe the orlginal intent was to allow two containers with a total maximum capacity of 90 pounds of LP-Gas. Underwriters Laboratorles have listed many large trucks using two 43 1/2 pounds LP-Gas containers. 45 pounds of LP-Gas is not enough to operate very large industrial trucks.

3525(b)(1) restricts the nun~ber of containers to two. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. ~ : Proposed 3525(b)(2) ~s 3561(b)(2) in the 1979 edition unchanged. Comment recommendation is new material and would double currently permitted quantlty.

58- 37 - (3532 (New)): Hold for Further Study SUBMII'FER: Madlson Post, I l l inois Vehicle Safety Coramlsslon ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Committee Action add a new section to read:

3532. The person (or organization) responslble for selectino or designating the components comprising the engine fuel system on a vehicle shall include hls (or ~ts) cert~flcation stating that even though rated or marked otherwise each component and each connection that Is subject to contalner pressure wi l l not be harmed ~n any manner i f subjected to LPG pressures up to 110% of the start-to-leak pressure marked on the container safety re l le f valve, in conformance with 3512(a)(4) or 3512(a)(5), and that each co~)onent and each connectlon in an ~solated sectlon w11l not be harmed in any manner i f subJected to LPG pressures up to the maximum allowed for that section in 3517(g). SUBSTANTIATION: Section 35 requires 250 psio worklng pressure (350 psig for hoses). Container pressures can range from 220 pslg to 528 pslg, or hlgher. (See 3511(a)(4) and (6), 3512(a)(4) and (5), footnote of Table 2-2, and D-012 in Appendix D.) Reports and remarks about container pressure re l ie f valves "weeping," seenin- " "snittlna," "venting," etc., indlcate that LeG pressures exceed working pressures ~n vehicle servlce more frequently than "once in a lifetime" and not only under "very unusual circumstances" or in "freak" instances. Ventlng from school buses llned up to refuel AFTER a local act lvl ty tr ip has been reported. Incldents observed and reported or remarked about must be judged to be only the "tips of icebergs." (Perhaps modern petroleum uti l izatlon and production stresses and oual~ty controls have resulted ~n product sometimes exceeding the maxlmum vapor pressure intended.) The new section should result in adequate safety factors ~n pressure ratlngs of components selected. I f there is no pressure problem, no one should hesitate to cert l fy as 3532 would require. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Recommendation is new material whlch introduces a concept which has not had publlc revlew and which wi l l require considerable research and dlscussion.

58- 54 - (3533 (New)): Hold-f-GF-F~-rTRer Study SUBMITTER: Madison Post, l l l lno ls Vehlcle Safety Commxss~on ~ 0 1 4 PROPOSAL NO.: 58-34 RECOMMENDATION: Under Commlttee Actlon add a sectlon:

3533. After Installation of an LP-Gas engine fuel system on any motor vehicle that is Intended pr]marlly for use on the public streets, roads, or hlghways weight loads exerted by the statlonary fu l ly loaded vehicle upon a level surface shall not exceed a t i re and rlm load ratlng, or the vehlcle chassis manufacturer's gross axle weiaht ratlng (GAWR), or the vehicle chassis manufacturer's weight load ratlng of any frame (or equivalent structure), suspension, wheel or brake on the vehicle. "Fully loaded" means the vehicle contains the fu l l capacity of each f luld used in the vehlcle, the maxlmum rated weight of cargo, freight, luagage, etc. In each cargo space, and 150 pounds ~n each passenger and dr~ver space (120 pounds in each pupil space ~n a school bus). Thls sectlon does not apply to a vehicle operated exclusively on a rai l or ral ls. SUBSTANTIATION: Thls w~ll ensure that NFPA 58 does not condone or encourage overloadlng of vehicles on the public roads. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Recommendation Is new mater~al which introduces a concept which has not had public rewew and which w~ll requlre conslderable research and dlscusslon.

58- 4 - (3920): Reject SUBMITTER: Melvyn Blake, AVCO SMD L'OI~RE"NT-I~N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-44 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following as subparts to Section 3920:

(a) The capability of the insulation to l lmit container temperature to not over 800°F shall be determined using the following parameters and test conditions:

( i ) The test plate shall be constructed, held, and instrumented as follows:

(I) The steel plate shall be not less than four (4) feet by four (4) feet by a nominal 5/8 in. thlckness.

(2) The plate shall be instrumented with not'less than nine thermocouples to record the thermal response of the plate. The thermocouples shall be attached to the surface not exposed to the test flame, and shall be dlvided into nine equal squares with a thermocouple placed In the center of each square. Prlor to exposure to the test flame, no thermocouple shall indicate a plate temperature in excess of 100°F or less than 32°F.

(3) The steel plate holder shall be constructed in such a manner that only heat transfer to the back slde of the plate is by heat conduction through the plate and not by other heat paths. The surface not exposed to the test flame shall be Insulated to mlnimize heat loss through the plate.

( i i ) The test flame shall be defined and calibrated as follows: (1) The fuel source for the flame shall be a hydrocarbon. (2) The flame temperature shall be 2200°F plus or mlnus

100OF throughout the duration of the test. (3) The flame velocity shall be 40 miles per hour plus or minus

]0 miles per hour throughout the duratlon of the test. (4) The flame shall be directed to the center of the test plate. (5) The locatlon of the flame shall he such that exposure of

the flame to a test plate havlng no insulation on the flame exposed face causes a mlnlmum of two thermocouples to indicate a tc~nperature of 800°F In a tlme of 4.0 mnutes plus or mlnus 0.5 mlnutes after exposure to the flame.

(b) The capab~llty of the insulation to be inherently resistant to weathering shall be determlned by applying I/4 in. of the insulation to one side of steel plate substrates ranglng from 5 in. by 18 in. to 10 in. by 36 ~n. by D.25 in. thick and exposing separate samples to the following environments:

{ i ) Aglnq - Clrculatlna air-oven exposure at 70°C. Samples shall be removed at four intervals covering a nlne month period.

(11) H1ah Humldlty - Exposure to controlled humldlty at 97-100 percent at 95°F for a period of slx months.

( i i1) Industrlal Atmosphere (CO 2 - SO 2 Air Mixture) - Exposed to amount of sulphur dloxlde eoulvalent to I percent of the volume of the test chamber, and an equal volume of carbon dioxlde. A small amount of water shall he malntalned at the bottom of the chamher; chamber at 95°F; exposure; perlod to be one month.

(iv) Wet, Freeze and Dry Cycle - A1ternatie exposure to water (0.7 in. per hour for 72 hours), minus aO°F for 2 a hours and dry atmosphere (120°F for 72 hours) for 12 weeks.

(v) Weathermeter - Ultraviolet 11ght and water by mountlng samples vert lcal ly on the inside of a cylinder 31 in. In dianmter, I8 in. high with two I/2 in. dlameter carbon electrodes located in the center of the cy1~nder. The cyllnder shall revolve at I revolutlon per mlnute exposing the sample In turn to water spray nozzles. During each ?0 mlnutes samples shall he exposed to light and water spray for three m~nutes and to llght only for 17 minutes (Atlas Weatherometer). Duratlon: 720 hours.

(vi) Salt Spray - Samples shall be exposed to salt spray for 90 days using ASTM Vethod Bl17-6 ~.

and subsequently maklna the followlng determlnatlons: (I) That environmental exposure did not adversely affect

intearity of the insulatlon, ( i i ) That the insulatlon dld not cause or accelerate corroslon

of the steel plate. ( i i i ) That f l re exposure of the samples in the NFPA 251 f l re

test envlronment dld not result In sample plate temperatures hloher than 25~ than those found ~,ith controls havlng the same thickness of insulatlon but which were not exposed to the above envlronmental condltlons.

(c) The caoab111ty of the Insulatlon to be inherently reslstant to the actlon of hose streams shall be determined by:

(I) Conductlna the flame test described in (a). (11) After 25 mlnutes of exposure to the flame test, exposlng

the steel plate to a hose stream descrlbed below, concurrently wlth the flame test for a period of 10 m~nutes.

I. The stream shall be directed f i rs t at the mlddle and then at all parts of the exposed surface, maklng changes in dlrectlon slowly.

P. The hose stream shall be dellvered through a 2 I/2 In. (64 mm) hose dlscharglng through a Natlonal Standard Playplpe of correspondlng size equipped with 1 I/8 in. (29 mm) dlscharge tlp of the standard-taper smooth-bore pattern without shoulder at the orlf lce. The water pressure at the base of the nozzle and for the duration of the test shall he 70 psi. (Estimated delivery rate Is 205 aallons per mlnute).

3.- The tlp of the nozzle shall be located 20 f t (6 meters) from and on a line normal to the center of the test specimen. I f imposslhle to be so located, the nozzle may be on a llne devlat~ng not to exceed 30 deerees from the llne normal to the center of the test specimen. Whe~ so located the distance from the center shall he less than 20 f t (6 meters) by an amount equal to 1 f t (0.3) meters for each 10 deorees of devlatlon from the normal.

( i i~) Subsequent to appllcation of the hose stream, contlnulng flame test exposure and determinlng that no thermocouple Ind~cates a steel plate temperature to not over 800°F after 50 minutes total exposure to the test flame.

113

SUBSTANTIATION: Action proposed by TCR 59-44 renders Section 39?0 essent ia l ly meaningless--requirements called out are not defined in relat ionship to performance c r i t e r i a . The c r i t e r i a proposed by this comment is based on the fol lowing:

I. Thermal insulation capab i l i t y - the test conditions cited can be met by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation f a c i l i t y at Socorro, N.M. and studies sponsored by the U.S.D.O.T. have revealed that excel lent corre lat ion exists between the Socorro f a c i l i t y and conditions which can exist when a L.P. gas container is exposed to f i r e .

2. Weatherabil ity - the test conditions proposed are presently u t i l i zed by Underwriters laboratories Inc. in determining whether thermal insulation systems can be l is ted for Exterior Use.

3. Hose Stream Resistance - the hose stream conditions proposed as those described in CHAPTER 4 of NFPA 252. While rigorous, the hose stream not only evaluates thermal shock resistance but also erosion resistance under conditions which could be considered worse case in actual f i r e s i tuat ion.

In short, the proposed additions represent established tests which have been shown to have relavance to the type of environment ( f i r e and otherwise) to which a thermal insulat ion system could be exposed when used to provide special protection for L.P. gas storage tanks. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Recommendation would improperly exclude other test methods which would be suitahle. The Committee recognizes that a test standard is highly desirable and has encouraged i ts development.

58- 5 - (3920 thru 3924): Reject SUBMITTER: Melvyn Blake, AVCO SMD ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 58-44 RECOMMENDAIION: Delete present Section 3920.

Change number of Section 3921 to 3920. Change number of Section 3922 to 3921. Change number of Section 3923 to 3922. Change number of Section 3924 to 3923.

SUBSTANTIATION: Action proposed by TCR 58-44 renders Section 3920 essent ia l ly meaningless--requirements called out are not defined and provide author i t ies having ju r i sd i c t i on with no sound hasis fer determining which test procedures used by an approved laboratory are val id and which are not. Further without some reference to a correlatable set of test conditions, action proposed by TCR 58-44 would lead to undue confusion. To avoid this confusion, i t appears to be preferable te eliminate a l l reference to insulation i f the a l ternat ive is TRC 58-44. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Regardless of the l imited spec i f i c i t y of 3920, the concept of insulat ion as a means of special protection is val id. I ts deletion would discourage applications and development of test c r i t e r i a .

114