(log #3) comment on proposal no: 22-i · patterns or corrosion leaks, sa'uctural failures, or...

Report of the Committee on

Water Tanks

RichardJ. Davis, Chair Factory Mutual Research, MA

Robert M. Gagnon, Gagnon Engr Corp., MD David Hocldaauser, isseks Brothers Inc., NY Herman J. Johnston, Pittsburg Tank & Tower Co. Inc., KS Nicholas A. Legatos, Preload Inc., NY

Rep. American Concrete Inst. • LeePaige, IRM Insurance, NC John E. Roche, Industrial Risk Insurers, CT

wRa~cindustrial Risk Insurers e R. Rosenwach, Rosenwach Tank Co. Inc., NY

Re D. Nat'l Wood Tank Inst. William L. Testa, Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co. Inc., RI

Rep. Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Alternates

Robert E. Bebon, IRM Services, Inc., NC (Alt. to L. Paige)

Richard A. Gross, Industrial Risk Insurers, CT (Alt. toJ. E. Roche)

Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'! Fire Sprinkler Assn., NY (Aft. to W. L Testa)

Andrew Rosenwach, Rosenwach Tank Co., Inc., NY (Alt. to W. R. Rosenwach)

StatfLiaision: Milosh T. Puchovsky

This list 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.

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibil- ity for documents on the design, construction, installation, and maintenance of tanks and accessory equipment supplying water for fire extinguishment, including gravity and pressure tanks, towers and foundations, pipe connections and fittings, valve enclosures and frost protection, and tank heating equipment.

This portion of the Technical Committee Report of the Committee on Water Tanks is presented for adoption.

This Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Water Tanks and documents its'action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 22-1993, Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 1995 Fall Meeting.

Tlds Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Water Tanks, which consists of 9 voting members. The results of the balloting can be found in the report.

(Log #3) 22-1 - (2-3.7): Accept in Principle S U B ~ Dale Turner/Keith McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-I RECOMMENDATION: Delete "and tank nameplate." SUBSTANTIATION: Information pertaining to allowable loads cannot be sufficiently addressed on a nameplate and should reside on drawings and specifications only. COMMITIqgE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Replace: "This allowable design load" in the second sentence of CP5 with: "The maximum allowable uniform live load (ps 0 and the maximum allowable concentrated load (Ib)" Also add "(See section 2-3.4)" at the end of the paragraph.

COMMrrrEE STATEMENT: The committee wishes to be more specific regarding the type of loads to be identified on the drawings and nameplate. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhauser

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: JOHNSTON: Safety Concerns for maintenance and inspection of

tanks clearly suggests that allowable roof loads be included on tank nameplates, especially on bolted tank roofs which are constructed from fight gauge materials. The cost of adding this additional information to the tank nameplate will be minimal.

(Log #16) 22- 2 - (2-3.7): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Francis Grillot, Jr., A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete: "and tank nameplate" SUBSTANTIATION: The information should be provided on drawings only. Nameplates are often lost, damaged or not installed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITIT~ STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-1 (Log #3). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITI'EE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: OHNSTON: See Explanation of Negative on Comment 22-1

g #S).

(Log #33) 22-3- (2-3.7): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: RandolphJ Stayin, Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "and tank nameplate. ~ S ~ A N T I A T I O N : The information should be provided on drawings only, which would be sufficient to satisfy the concerns of the Technical Committee. Nameplates are not uniform among manufacturers, sometimes lost, damaged or not installed. The- nameplate requirement is redundant, unnecessary and impractical. COMM1TrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMrlTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-1 (Log #3). NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: (~L~HNSTON: See Explanation of Negative on Comment 22-1

g #3).

102

N F P A 2 2 - - F 9 5 R O C

(Log #4) 22- 4 - (4-2.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: Dale Turner /Kei th McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-2 RECOMMENDATION: None. SUBSTANTIATION: Agree with this, cont ingent on acceptance of 22-13 additions to be consistent with AWWA D103. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action to Comment 22-34 (Log #28). As the Committee is not modifying Proposal 22-13 in the ROP, no action is required by the acceptance of this Com- ment. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhauser

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: JOHNSTON: Refer to Comment 22-34 (Log #28).

(Log #17) 22-5- (4-2.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Francis Grillot, Jr., A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-2 RECOMMENDATION: No revision as long as Section 22-13-(9-4.3) is accepted as proposed. SUBSTANTIATION: Approve Section 22-13-(9-4.3) as proposed. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 22-34 (LOg#28). As the committee is not modifying proposal 22-13 in the ROP, no action is required by the acceptance of this comment. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: JOHNSTON: Refer to Commen t 22-34 (Log #28).

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: JOHNSTON" Refer to Comment 22-34 (Log #28).

(Log #5) 22- 8 - (4-5.1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Dale Turner /Kei th McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-4 RECOMMENDATION: Reject this proposal entirely.

Maintain current wording. SUBSTANTIATION: Loads are not a factor in establishing minimum thickness in this situation. Recommend following AWWA D103. Corrosion is resisted by coatings on both sides of bottom panels of bolted tanks relieving the corrosion allowance requirement in field welded tanks. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept comment as is and a d d t h e following term at the end of the

sentence: "provided the tank floor is suppor ted on a granular base, crushed

stone or concrete slab." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The floor plates of bolted tanks are coated on both the top and the bot tom surfaces. Consequendy, upon further discussion, the committee believes that a higher corrosion allowance is not necessary and that the existing thickness requirement is sufficient for the conditions specified. Art alternate dimension is not provided for other conditions as the committee believes that these conditions are unlikely to be found in the field. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED' 1 Hochhauser

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: JOHNSTON: The committee recognizes the fact that bolted tank

bottoms leak as is indicated by the requirement to include polyethylene liners under bolted tank bottoms. Such leaks on berm or ringwall foundations could lead to differential set t lement under- neath the tank which would put the bot tom plats in tension and possible cause the bot tom plats, which are 2.4 times th inner than 1 /4 in. plates, to shear or tear. The results could be a catastrophic toss of fire protection water. The fact that bolted tanks are in seismic zones only increases the possibility of such failures.

(Log #18) 22- 6 - (4-2.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Francis GriUot, Jr., A.O Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-3 RECOMMENDATION: Accept as stated. SUBSTANTIATION: COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: JOHNSTON: Refer to Explanation of Negative on Commen t 22-1

(Log #3).

(Log #34) 22- 7 - (4-2.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: RandolphJ Stayin, Water and Waste,arater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-2 RECOMMENDATION: This proposal is acceptable if 22-13 (9-4.3) is accepted as proposed. SUBSTANTIATION: 22-13 (9-4.3) as proposed covers dais issue

DS~l~iTTately and should be accepted. EEACTION: Accept in Principle.

COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 22-34 (Log#28). As the committee is no t modifying proposal 22-13 in the ROP, no action is required by the acceptance of this comment. NUMBER OF COMMI'I~'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMFFYEE ACTION:


(Log #19) 22-9- (4-5.1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Francis Grillot, Jr., A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "Floor sheets shall have a minimum thickness of 0.25 in." SUBSTANTIATION: The tank floors are 100 percent suppor ted by concrete or compacted sand foundation. Therefore they are not structural members. Bolted tank floors are factory coated on both sides preventing corrosion from either side, substantially different than a welded tank where a 1/16" corrosion allowance is needed because of coating failures. There are hundreds of bolted tanks in service with floors built to D-1O3 floor thickness with no corrosion or leaks, some have been in service for 20-30 years. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-5 (Log #5). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: (JLOHNSTON: Refer to Explanation of Negative on Comment 22-8

og #5).

(Log #35) 22-10 - (4-5.1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: RandolphJ Stayin, Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-4 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "Floor sheets shall have a minimum thickness of 0.25 in."

103

N F P A 22 - - F95 R o e

SUBSTANTIATION: The floor sheets of bolted steel tanks are not structural members. They are 100 percent supported by concrete or a compacted sand foundation and bear no structural load. There- fore, the)' do not have to be thick or structurally designed. The floor sheets of bolted steel tanks are 100 percent coated on both sides and are bolted together by corrosion protected bolts, thereby preventing corrosion from either side. Welded steel tanks are substantially different in that their floor sheets have little or no coating on the bottom of the sheets, and a field applied coating on the top of the sheets, submerged in water. Therefore, welded steel tanks require additional thickness to protect against corrosion and leaks due to coating failures, not structural support. The manufacturers of bolted steel tanks have thousands of water tanks designed to AWWA D-103 standards, many in operation for 20 to 30 years with shell plates and floors the thickness of D-105 standards. These tanks have not experienced problems or had failures. There are no failure patterns or corrosion leaks, sa'uctural failures, or an), other industry need to justify the proposed change in thickness. COMMITTEE ACTION: Acceptin Principle. COMMITIT.E STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-8 (Log #5). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMrITEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhanser

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: OHNSTON: See Explanation of Negative on Comment 22-8 og #5).

(Log #6) 22- 11 - (4-5.1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Dale Turner/Keith McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-5 RECOMMENDATION: 'Reject revised wording.

Remove wording "shall be 0.1875 in (4.8 mm)" replace with "shall be designed according to AWWA D10~r Replace "ft = -5Fv (1.0-0.9r + 3rd/s) _< .SFy; ft = 1/3Fu" with 'Tt

.6F v (1.0-0.9r + 3rd/s) _ .tiEr; ft = .4Fu" SUBSTANTIATION: AWWA D10~ establishes formulas for determination of shell thickness. This Proposal 22-5 has no technical substantiation. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action to Comment 22-14 (Log #50). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 6 NEGATIVE: 1 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhauser

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ROSENWACH: Future safety. ,


22-12 - (4-5.1.$): Accept in Principle (Log #20) SUBMITTER: Francis GriUot, Jr., A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. C O ~ ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-5 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 45.1.~ to read as follows and delete the exception. Delete:

1. "The minimum shell plate thickness shall meet the following criteria". 2. Do not add a new section that read: "The minimum thickness of

the first full height shell plate and starter ring (if applicable) shall be 0.187 in. (4.8 mm). In no case shall the shell plate thickness be less than that required by Section 4-5.1.3".

3. Do not delete "the exception to" Bolted tank shell penetrations are all designed with reinforcement to amount for the loss of steel

IATION: There is no evidence preseoted to indicate that current designs are deficient. The bolted tank manufacturers liave thousands of tanks designed and operating to AWWA D103 standards without experiencing industry wide problems. This is an attempt to arbitrarily increase the tank thickness in an obvious attempt to reduce competition and restrain trade. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

COMMrITEE b ' T A ~ T : See Committee Action on Comment 22-14 (Log #50). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 6 NEGATIVE: 1 ABSTENTION: I NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhanser

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ROSENWACH: Future safety.


(Log #36) 22-13 - (4-5.1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: RandoiphJ Stayin, Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-5 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 4-5.1.3 to read as follows and delete Exception.

1. Delete ~The minimum shell plate thickness shall meet the following criteria."

2. Do not add a new section that reads "The minimum thickness of the first full height shell plate and starter ring (if applicable) shall be 0.187 in. (4.8 mm). In no case shall the shell plate thickness be less than that required by Section 4-5.1.3."

3. Do not delete "the exception to". Bolted tank shell penetrations are all designed with reinforcement to account for the loss of steel o e tion

IATION: As indicated in previous comments, the "logic" which applies to the welded steel tanks often does not apply to bolted steel tanks and cannot justify the revisions and deletions as proposed by the Technical Committee. There is no evidence

~ resented, and we know of none, to indicate that current designs of olted steel tanks are deficient. The manufacturers of bolted steel

tanks have thousands of installatio~as of tanks designed and operating to AWWA D-103 standards. There is no indication that there are any problems or failures originating from these designs. This unsubstantiated proposal will unnecessarily increase the costs of producing bolted steel tanks and artificially increase the prices of the product. There is no justification for imposing these arbitrary minimum thickness requirements upon bolted steel tank manufacturers and undermining their competitive position in the market- place. It is clearly unreasonable to force these economically burdensome, technically unnecessary and anticompetitive requirements on manufacturers of bolted steel tanks.

Do not delete "the exception to." All bolted steel tank manufacturers design reinforcing plates to compensate for the steel loss in pipe penetrations. The tank sheets do not have to be thicker. The curvature is not affected since reinforcing plates are made at the curvature of the tank. COMMITIT.E ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMYITEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 22-14 (Log #50). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 6 NEGATIVE: 1 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: I Hochhanser

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ROSENWACH: Future safety.

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: JOHNSTON: Refer to Comment 22-14 (L6g #50).

(Log #50) 22-14- (4-5.1.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associa- tion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-5 RECOMMENDATION: Reject Proposal 22-5. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee has presented no justification that bolted steel tanks built in compliance with the 1995 edition of NFPA 22 are subject to failure or problems of any kind. COMMITrF~ ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 6 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhauser

104

J O ~ : As t t ~ e was no.vklem:e presented to the committee amt no docummmd jumidca;ion the committee arbterarily_ set the bottom ahdi co ta~ n~nd~mm d ~ ' l m e ~ a t l l41n, for welded ~teel

bolted steer tan~ remeve~ any m ~ o n of'proference for one tank ma~ufa~ufe ~ a~ ottu~, ~ l ~ . ~ h e beked t a n k ~ course thickne~ places economically~r~emome ~ anticompeti~ve requlr~nents on welded steel tank n~mu~acmrera. ROSENWACH: Furore safety. ' '

(Log#7) 2"2-15 - (4-7.1): Accept in Principle S ~ Dale Tumer/Ke~th McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-7

: Conformance to AWWA D105 is recora- mended withom additional slipulatiom imposed by tho~e unfamiliar with bolted tanks. COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. ,

1. Revise th¢ wording of propbsed exception in the ROP 1 o l ~ d as follov~ "Polyethelyne s h e e ~ krnot required for ta~ks with concrete slabs that also serve .as the tank floor provided+ the provisionsof section 8-6 have been .comlpiicdwith2

2. In the ex i~ng wordi ~ of the second~ntence o~existing section 4-7.1, replace the term "tanks" with "~teel floor prates". COMMI'ITEg S T A f f Upon further disom~on the committee believes that the detection of leaks i~ Vmn'ented but not under the identified conditions. Also, it is not practical to install a

l~ olyethelyne sheet ~ a~awk thl~u/tL~e~ a ¢oncarote slab-m tl~,talak o o r . • " . :. ' " •

NUMBER OF C O ~ M]~I~I~S FJAGIBI~ T O VO~[~ 9 VOTE ON COMMITTI~ ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhauser

22-16. (4-7.1): Reject (Log#21) S U B ~ Francis Grillot,Jr., A.O. Smith ~ o r e Products~ + inc. COMMENT OS ....

R E ~ A Y I O I ~ Delete the m~gem~t chang~ , . " S~A!~E~ION;+ Such detailed:imm~ctiomare mot ~n~il~eant in a standard. The pobethylene sheet placement is not critical to. the operation of the tank or it's design or performance. C O M M I ' ~ AC'~-ON: Reject. - , COMldriTE~ STATI~t~gN~: The proposed changes in the , ,- + wording indicated in Pr, .opo~ 22-6 ( L o g ~ l ) of the ROP are editorial, and do not add-anynew requi?ements.

, N U M I F 2 t O I ~ ~ M ! ~ a U ~ J ~ L ~ I B I L E T O V O T E : 9 VOTE ON C O ~ ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NOT ~ : 1 Hochhauser

COMMENT ON ~ T I V ~

JOHNSTON: Agree with committee rejection.

(Log #~) 22-17-(4-7.1): Accept in Principle S ~ • Francis Grillot, Jr., .A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON t'ROPOSAL NO: 22-7 I~COMMF34DATION: Add the exc~plion as requested. SUBSTANTIATION: Polyethylene ebeetingi~ not needed on a concrete slab foundatinn.ami cannot be esed when a base setting ring i~.me~ Not ac~ptlng this exception indicates a lace of ded~n

ACTION: .Acf~pt in Principle. . _ see ~ ~t~on and Statement ee C~mmeat ~-~ 5 (L~g t~).

C O M M r r r ] ~ S T A ~ : While the ~ ag~ee~ ia ~rincipal with the action mbmitted b~ the submitter~.the ~ . . t r e e ooes not agree with the ~ r ' . ~ m m o n ~ t m t la~e*t~!ene sheeting is not needed on a concrete s lablo~daflon. , ,

VOTE ON COMMITI['Eg ACTION:. AFFIRMATIVE: 7 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhauser

I~dq,~q+ ktl 'lON OF ~ O N " , JOHNSTON: Agree with committee statement.

\

S ~ RandolphJ Sta,/In, Water and Wastewater Equipment ers A~m.

ON P l t O ~ NO:. 22-6 l t g C ~ ~ O N : + Delz~ the suggested changes. s t r l l s ~ l & l ~ l O ~ : ,Such d e t a i l e d ~ are inappropriate in a ~andald.. T h e , ~ . . ~ , y ~ _ thect placement is not critical to the operation of the tank, it s design of performance. ~ ~ + ~ e c t , + . . . .

f f r A ~ : See Committee Acflonand Statement on Comment ~,-16 (Log #~21). NUMIM~ OF ( IOl t~t l l ' r l l~ MI~I~EI~ ~I[JGI~LE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE O N ~ ~ ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7

I~0PLANATION OF ~ O N : -

JOHNSTON: Refer to Comment 22-16 (Log #21).

(tog ~ s ) 22=.19-(~7.1 Exceplicm (New)): Acceptin Principle SU-IIMITI'E~ RandolphJ Stayin0 Water and Wastewater Equipment Manu~cturers Assn. COMMENT ,ON PI~OI~SAL NO:. 22-.7 i t E ~ l l O l g : Add the exceplion as requestvt. SUllSr i ta~lb ' f lON: .ttetyetlD4e~e lheeting is not needed on a concrete ~d4tb f0m]fttt[~n~+ and cannot be reed when a base setling right is L--,~L. T~e'r , e d ~ Committee's rejection of this exception ~ m ~ e . alack ~ design lmowied~ with respect to boked steel ,

COMMITIP]~ ACTIONt! Accept in Prindple. See Commlttee&ctionandfltaeement o ~ C ~ m m m t 22-15 (Log#T).

~ d ~ I n M I N T : Wl~aethe tom. t r ee agree~ in . Fiactpal.wlth ~ . , ~ i o a ~ ~ the ~ b m t t ~ &e committee. does not asree with the mbmitter s m ' a n a n ~ O a that polyethelene sheeul~4~l~ot needed ~m a compete stab ~ u n ~ . • -

O1+ ,COMMITY~ ~ F A ~ I I f f ~ TO VOTI~ 9, VOTE ON ~ ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhanser

EXPIAI~TIOI~ OF AII$1"gl~'ION: JOHN~,TON: l~fer to Comment.2~+16 (Log #21).

22; 20 - (4-7.5): Accept S U ~ Dale Tumer/Keith McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMIDIT O M ~ ~ NO:. ~ , 8 l t t ~ ~ O N : Bzject tecon.nend~on. ' SUIgSTAN'~ATION: The vacuum method' is not appropriate for

AC~IOI~ du~ept ' J ~ - U b n t l ~ g ~ ~ ~ EUC, mLE TO V O T ~ 9 VOTE ON ~ ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NEGATrV~ ~ 1 NOT RETU~_,D: 1 Hochhauam"

EXPIANATION OF NEGATIV~ InJOHNSTON: The vacuum box method of ~ " ~ bottom lap joints

bolted tanks is referenced in AWWA D10$ Secdon 9,2 testing. This is the aboveground storage tank industries minimum standard for detecting leal~+ _ in bottom seams prior to the hydrostatic test. It is for the benefit of both the tank manufacturer and tank owner to be" assured of a leak free bottom before expending llme, water and labor filling the tank. All abovegrmmd malt standards; API, AWWA, Factory Mutual and UL i/tdede vacuum box testing of bottom s e a ~ P d L

105

NFPA 22 ~ F95 RO C

(Log #23) 22- 21 - (4-7.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Francis Grillot, Jr., A.O. Smith HarvestorcProducts, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-8 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire item. SUBSTANTIATION: There are other ways to f ind and repair a floor leak if and when one occurs. This test is no t required of welded floors. The occurrence of leaks in the floors of bolted tanks does no t justify the change. COMMYITEE ACTION: Accept in Pr indple .

See Committee Action on Commen t 22-20 (Log #8). COMMITFEE STATEMENT: While the committee agrees with the comment , the commit tee wishes to clarify that a vacuum method test is required for welded steel tartlY. NUMBER OF COMMITIY_,E MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMrlTEE ACTION:


• EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: fJoOHNSTON: As no ted in Comment 22-20 (Log #8) all standards

r aboveground storage tanks include vacuum box testing o f bot tom seams.

(Log #39) 22- 22 - (4-7.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITI~R: RandolphJ Stayin, Water andWastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-8 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire text. • SUBSTANTIATION: There are other ways to f ind and repair a floor leak if and when one occurs. This test is no t required of welded steel tank floors. There is no factual evidence to justify or support the technical validity of this new test. It is clearly unreasonable to force these economically burdensome and anticompetitive requirements on manufacturers of bolted steel tanks. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. ' See Committee Action on Comment 22-20 (Log #8).

C O M M r r r l g ~ STATEMENT: While the committee agrees with the comment , the committee wishes to clarify that a vacuum method test

ed for welded steel tanks. R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhanser

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: JOHNSTON: As no o ther procedures have been presented to the

committee for testing bot tom seams the only alternative is to follow the procedures that all o ther aboveground tank standards utilize, vacuum box testing.

(Log #9) 22- 23 - (4-7.6): Accept SUBM1TTER: Dale Turne r /Ke i th McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-9 RECOMMENDATION: Reject proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Reference practices described in AWWA D100. Performing repairs and performing inspection have different water level requirements. AWWA D103 addresses this issue in Section 9.2. COMMITrEEACTION: Accept. • _ NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NOT RETURNED: i Hochhanser

(Log #24) 22- 24 - (4-7.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Francm Grillot, Jr., A~O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-9 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire section. SUBSTANTIATION: The statement "The repair of joints in the tank shell should be made while the water level is at the maximum design water level." makes no sense. If and when a leak occurs,

manufacturers and AWWA r e c o m m e n d re~oair while the water level is above the leak. Having the water at the maximum design water " level" may be impractical. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action on Comment 22-23 (Log #9). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMrFrEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: JOHNSTON: Refer to C ommen t 22-23 (Log #9).

(Log #40) 22- 25 - (4-7.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: RandolphJ Stayin, Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-9 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire text. SUBSTANTIATION: The statement "The repair of joints in the tank shell should be made while the water level is at the maximum design water level." makes no sense, f f a n d when a leak occurs, manufacturers and AWWA recommend re~air while the water level is above the leak. Having the water at the maximum design water level" may be impractical. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

• COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 22-23 (Log #9). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



(Log #10) 22- 26 - (4-7.7): Reject SUBMrrTER: Dale Turner /Kei th McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-10 RECOMMENDATION: Reject proposed wording. SUBSTANTIATION: Unnecessary as manufacturer 's instructions must be followed in all aspec~ of tank installation. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMIT'FEE STATEMENT: Appendix language is non-mandatory and is helpful to installing contractors. In addition, the committee believes that these recommendat ions supplement the manufacture 's instructions. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MI~[BI~K~ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTI~ ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: JOHNSTON: Agree with committee statement.

(Log #25) 22-27- (4-7.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Francis Grillot,Jr., A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-10 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire statement. SUBSTANTIATION: Each bolted tank manufacturer publishes specific instructions on bolt tnrquing. In addit ion these manufacturers train and certify their builders. Making statements in a standard will have no affect for manufacturers policy or training practices and therefore is not needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-20 (Log #10). NUMBER OF COMMIIWEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


106

N F P A 22 - - F 9 5 R O C

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: JOHNSTON: Refer to Explanation of Negative on Comment 22-26 (Log #10).

(Log #41) 22- 28 - (4-7.7): Reject SUBMITTER: RandolphJ Stayin, Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-10 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire text. SUBSTANTIATION: Each bolted tank manufacturer publishes specific instructions on bolt tourqueing. In addition, these manufacturers train and certify their builders. Making statements in a standard will have no affect for manufacturers policy or training practices and therefore is unnecessary, superfluous, and potentially confusmg. Not all manufacturers recommend re-tourqueing in areas where a leak might occur. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-26 (Log #10). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



(Log #42) 22- 31 - (9-2.2 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: RandolphJ Stayin, Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-11 RECOMMENDATION: Accept the recommended new exception. SUBSTANTIATION: AWWA standards were developed based on sound engineering design and industry practice. The consultant and foundation designer should be responsible for the best site specific design for their customer according to AWWA D-103 design standards. The Technical Committee statement misses the point. First of all, most if not all granular foundations have steel or concrete retainer rings around the beam to prevent erosion. Seismic design stands on its own in the AWWA D-103 standard and design will dictate whether the conditions can be achieved. These tanks are not large enough for the roof live and deadloads to be a determining factor and, if it is, then design would dictate the use of concrete. Design is best left up to the experts to determine on a case -by-case basis. COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-29 (Log #26). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: JOHNSTON: Refer to Comment 22-29 (Log #26).

(Log #26) 22-29- (9-2 2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Francis Grillot, Jr., A.O. Smidl Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-11 RECOMMENDATION: Please accept the recommendation. SUBSTANTIATION: AWWA standards were developed based on sound engineering design and industry practice. The consultant and foundation designer should be responsible for the best site specific design for their customer according to AWWA D-103 design standards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept proposal 22-11 as stated in the ROP with the following

modifications: 1. Add the term "of 4000 gallons or less" after "steel suction tanks". 2. Replace the term "may" with "shall be permitted to."

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The 4000 gal limit was added to allow less cosdy alternative designs to be used in residential occupancies. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: JOHNSTON" Accept committee action and statement.

( Log #11) 22- 30 - (9-2.2 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Dale Turner/Keith McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-11 RECOMMENDATION: Accept the recommendation. SUBSTANTIATION: Any foundation must be suitable for the site and installed properly to perform and requires due consideration by an engineer. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-29 (Log #26). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



(Log #12) 22- 32 - (9-4.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Dale Turner/Keith McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-12 RECOMMENDATION: None. SUBSTANTIATION: Agree with this, contingent on acceptance of 22-13 additions to be consistent with AWWA D103. COMMITI'EEACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 22-34 (Log #28). As the Committee is not modifying proposal 22-13 (Log #CPJ) in the ROP, no action is required by the acceptance of this comment NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



(Log #27) 22- 33 - (9-4.3). Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Francis Grillot, Jr., A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-12 RECOMMENDATION: Rejection is O.K. as long as 22-13 is accepted. SUBSTANTIATION: COMMrFI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 22-34 (Log #28). As the committee is not modifying proposal 22-13 (Log #CPJ) in the ROP, no action is required by the acceptance of this comment. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: JOHNSTON: Refer to Comment 22-12 (Log#20).

107

N F P A 22 - - F 9 5 R O C

(Log #28) 22- 34- (9-4.3): Accept S~TTI~,: Francis C~illot, Jr., A.O. Smith.Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-I3 RECOMMENDATION: Accept as presented. SUBSTANTIATION: COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



(Log #43) 22- 35 - (9-4.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: RandolphJ Stayin, Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-12 RECOMMENDATION: Rejection is acceptable as long as 22-13 (9-4.3) is accepted. SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMFITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMIIWEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 22-34 (LOg #28). As the committee is not modifying proposal 22-13 (Log #CP3) in the ROP, no action is required by the acceptance of this comment. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



(Log #44) 22- 36 - (9-4.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: RandolphJ Stayin, Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-13 RECOMMENDATION: Accept as presented. SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMM]TIT, E STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 22-34 (Log #28). As the committee is not modifyin[ proposal 22-13 (Log #CP3) in the ROP, no action is required by the acceptance of this comment. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: OHNSTON: Refer to Explanation of Negative on Comment 22-14 og #50).

(Log #29) 22- 37 - (11-6.2.1): Reject SUBMHTER: Francis Grillot, Jr., A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-15 RECOMMENDATION: Request acceptance of recommendation. SUBSTANTIATION: Confined space entry has nothing to do with the number of size of access. Factory coatings are used on bolted tanks so field ventilation is not needed. This follows D-100 and D- 103 standards, ff additional ventilation is required a panel can be removed ~OMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Ira second manhole is desired and not available, the owner could allow the removal of a panel of the

~ ate by an unqualified person. ER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS F~LIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhauser

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: JOHNSTON: Agree with Committee Statement.

(Log #45) 22- 38 - (11-6.2.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Randolph J stayin, Water and Wastewater Equipment ManufacturersAssn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-15 RECOMMENDATION: Accept recommended new section. SUBSTANTIATION: Confined space entry has nothing to do with the number or size of access. Factory coatings are used on bolted tanks so field ventilatign is not needed. This follows AWWA D-100 and D-103 standards. On the rare occasion when more access or additional ventilation is required, a panel can be removed as easily as a manway can be opened on a bolted steel tank. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITIT~ STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-37 (Log #29). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



( Log #13) 22- 39 - (H-6.2.1, 11-6.2.2): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMrrrER: Dale Turner/Keith McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-15, 22-16 RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal. S ~ A N T I A T I O N : This does not violate confined space entry. Follow AWWA D103 guidelines as maintenance considerations are the same. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

1. Reject the.portion of the submitters comment regarding proposal 22-15.

2. Accept in principal the portion of the submitter s comment regarding proposal 22-16. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 1. Refer to Committee Statement on Comment 22-37 (Log #'29).

2. Refer to Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-40 (Log #30). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMrITEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhauser

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: JOHNSTON: Refer to Comment 22-37 (Log #29) and it is a

misleading statement that bolted tanks do not require ventilation due to a baked on coating. All tanks may require disinfection by the spray method, also galvanized and bakedon epoxy systems do fail resulting in requiring an internal sandblast and recoating of the tank. Sense,all of these conditions meet OSHA's requirements for special venting the additional shell manway should be included.

(Log #30) 22-40- (11-6.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMI'FrER: Francis Grillot, Jr., A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-16 RECOMMENDATION: Request acceptance of recommendation. SUBSTANTIATION: Confined space entry has nothing to do with the number or size of access. Factory coatings are used on bolted tank~ so field ventilation is not needed. This follows D-100 and D- 103 standards, ff additional ventilation is required a panel can be removed.

108

N F P A 2 2 - - F 9 5 R O C

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. 1. Maintain the first paragraph of current section 11-6.2, and add

the following as the second sentence of this paragraph: "The design of the manholes shall be in accordance with AWWA

D100 for welded steel tanks and AWWA D103 for bolted steel tanks." 2. Delete the remaining three existing paragraphs of section

11-6.2. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The existing language in section 11-6.2 is applicable only to welded steel tanks. The revision clarifies the appropriate requirements for shell manholes for both welded and bol ted tanks. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: JOHNSTON: Agree ruth Committee Statement.

(Log #46) 22- 41 - (11-6.2.2 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: RandolphJ Stayin, Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-16 RECOMMENDATION: Accept r ecommended new section. SUBSTANTIATION: Confined space entry has nothing to do with the number or size of access. Factory coatings are used on bolted tanks so field ventilation is not needed. This follows AWWA D-100 and D-103 standards. On the rare occasion when more access or additional ventilatmn is required, a panel can be removed as easily as a manway can be opened on a bolted steel tank. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-40 (Log #30). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



(Log #49) 22- 42 - (11-8.1, 11-8, A-11-8): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Joseph R. Ciepierski, American Insurance Services Group, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-17 RECOMMENDATION: 1. 11-8.1 Added provisions for installation of two water tempera ture and two water level "alarms" installed in accordance with NFPA 72 on ~ while 11-8.2 expanded the requirements even fu~he r by requiring pressure tanks to be provided with connections for the installation of high and low water pressure alarms in accordance with NFPA 72.

2. A-11-8 It is not the intent of this standard to require electronic supervision of tanks, however, where such supervision is required in accordance with NFPA 72, the following alarms or supervisory signals are required:

(a) Water temperature below 40°F (b) Return of water temperature to 40°F (c) Water level 3 in. (pressure tanks) or 5 in. (all o ther tanks)

below normal (d) Water level re turn to normal (e) Pressure in pressure tank 10 psi below normal (f) Pressure i pressure tank 10 psi above normal

SUBSTANTIATION: While I strongly support the concept of moni tor ing water level, temperature, in all tanks and air pressure within pressurized tanks, I do feel the wording in this rewsion is improper . Requiring "two water temperature" and "two water level" alarms is no t cost efficient and may be technology limiting (as I can easily accomplish the intent of the code with one device). What is the purpose of TWO alarm devices? redundancy? Monitoring of different conditions? I feel the standard should be worded to the effect: Provisions for installation fwater temperature and water level "alarm" equipment mstalled in accordance with NFPA 72 The

alarm system should be capable of a) identifying water temperature below 40°F and the Return of water temperature to 40°F and b) Water level 3 in. (pressure tanks) or 5 in. (all o ther tanks) below normal and when the Water level has re turned to normal and c) alerting when the Pressure m a pressure tank falls 10 psi below normal and should the Pressure in the pressure tank increase by a margin of 10psi above normal. COMMITrEEACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise proposed section 11-8.1 to read as follows: "Provisions shall be made for the installation of sensors in

accordance with NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code, for two critical water temperatures and two critical water levels."

Proposedsect ions 11-8.2 and A-11.8 to remain as indicated m the ROP. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: This more clearly identifies the committee 's intent with regard to alarms for water tanks and addresses the submitter 's stated concern. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhanser

(Log #53) 22-43- (14-4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Dick Davis, Factory Mutual Research Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-18 RECOMMENDATION: Types as follows:

Line #5 "shall be made" Line #8 "is clear"

SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITI"EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhanser

(Log #14) 22-44- (Figure B-14): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEI~ Dale Turner /Kei th McGuire, Peabody TecTank COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-19 RECOMMENDATION: Add new drawings for bolted tanks. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies file standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22..46 (Log #47). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:


(Log #31) 22-45 - (Figure B-14): Accept in Principle SUBMYFrER: Francis Grillot, Jr., A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-19 RECOMMENDATION: Include two more figures for bolted tanks. See on next page. (only one figure submitted) SUBSTANTIATION: The "welded only" drawing is deceiving. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-46 (Log #47). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


109

N F P A 22 - - F9S R O C

t . ALL SHELL PLATES ..SHALL CONFORM TO AWWA D l 0 3 . Z. ALL SHELL PLATES SHALL BE ROLLED TO THE INSIDE

01AMETER OF THE TANK, 3. ALL WORK SHALL S E IN ACCOROANCE WITH AWWA D I 0 3 .

NFPAZZ. ANO FACTORY MUTUAL SPECIFICATIONS. 4 'ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE FIELO LOCATED ANO/OR

ORIENrED BY" CUSTOMER. § INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR COATING SHALL BE IN

AccORDANCE WII"H AWWA ID103.

• I PL'~N

~ 3~ET

~ FLOOe LEVEL

- FK.L LIME ~ 1rl(3~+,l PIPE WITH E L E V A T I O N /vNn -vOeTEx ~t.* rE

150M GAL. GROUNO SUCTION TANK TYPICAL ~=ACTORY COATED. BOLTED STEEL TANK.

[

NOM. HEIGHt

Z8" N O ~ . rANK

HE~GHIr

2 2 4 5 ( L o g #$1)

(Log #47) 2"2- 46 -'(Figure B-14 (New)): Accept in Principle SLrBMITI~I~ Randolph J Stayin, Water mad Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-19 RECOMMENDATION: Include two more figures for bolted tanks. The "welded only" drawing is deceiving.

ALL SHELL PLATES SHALL CONFORM TO AWWA O I03. Z.. ALL SHELL PLATES SHALL 8E ROLLED TO THE INSIDE

DIAMETER OF THE TANK. 3. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA D I03.

NFPA2Z. AND FACTORY MUTUAL SPECIFICATIONS 4. ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE FIELD LOCATED AND/OR

ORIENTED BY CUSTOMER. 5. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR COATING SHALL 8E IN

ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA 0103

MAhWAY PtATF()R~I,I ~

INS DIA

PLAN ROOF WALKWAY • GUARORAeL

LI(X"O LEVEL OAU~E

LAOOER • SAFETY CAGE KIT

BOTTOM LAOOER RUNG TO FL~

8OTTOt,i OF SAFETY CAGE TO FLOOR

8 - - NOM. 6 " - 0 "

I T /'~,.r I / ]

FILL LINE J

ISOM GAL. GROUND SUCTION TANK TYPICAL F'ACTORY COATED; 8OLTED STEEL TANK.

GRAVITY VF.NTILA TOR

~ 6 RG~e

!/ ~$:~rd.t 3~Er 28"

E L E V A T I O N /~Nrl-VO~TEX PLATE

22-46 (Log #47)

110

N F P A 22 - - F95 R O C

c ~ . u~.,, .t .

s+CilO. -~ -+,-

m e t ~ . ~ m l

ME ~ K I N G o ( i . i t t t t l e f~ . ~ [ i

'5 im . t ¢ ~ k

'1 [k [+ l i l lOm

z I t . e ~ t t t ~ m ~OLI[O S t i l t P t l 9

siml+ ~ s r l t +e 1~ Io~l O ~ m t ~

$ 1 t l t m*Jt

l - l y i ]+lY SIA~$

. . . . ,+,::; "2~: ~ t c~xmlm m~mt¢

s~A+t

s t a r t /

s ( cno . , |+. e-

emtUAllON , A ~ m

e . l ~ ~ o

i r

~ ¢ n o . " t ' - ' t " ~ , t t t ~ t,~¢. • . t t t . t i m I~ t l t * ~ t ~ l . . lSm t ~ t , m , I

¢ . t . t l ~ , t ~ l t mS3 • .S. r l*t* +*1. +~+ Stl lKt. ftnl[, Arm ~ ~ 0 ¢+S l e u 5 , t,+4[ m. $ t s tn ~ t*tD)

SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the submitter 's proposed figures as follows and number them as Figure B-14(b) and Figure B-14(c). Figures shown on following two pages. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Two new figures were added as there a~e differences between welded tanks a n d b o l t e d tanks. The submitters proposed figures are being modified as the committee intends for the figures to be generic in nature. Pipe sizes and certain dimensions will vary depending upon the given installation. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERSELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


22-46 (Log #47)

111

NFPA 22 - - F95 ROC

ROOF M A N W A Y - ~ ~

MANWAY PLATFORM

- - N O M . INSIDE DIA.

ROOF PANELS -/

PL ~N ROOF WALKWAY ~ ~GRAVITY VENTILATOR & GUARDRAIL

~ ' ~ ~ /-----TOP OF RO(~F CAP

LIOUID LEVEL GAUGE

LADDER & SAFETY - CAGE KIT

BOTTOM LADDER RUNG TO FLOOR

BOTTOM OF SAFETY CAGE TO FLOOR

4 N O M .

N O M .

1 GRADE LEVEL--

s T O P OF SHELL SHEET NOM. ROOF

HEIGHT

J

ELEVATION

.----SHELL. SHEET

NOM. TANK HEIGHT

~ACCESS DOOR

//---'FLOOR LEVEL

\---SUCTION PIPE WITH ANTI-VORTEX PLATE

Figure B-14(b) Lap jointed bolted steel tank.

22-46 (Log #47)

112

N F P A 22 ~ F95 R O C

I

SECTION *A'-'A"

270 ° -

DECK SECCIEN T -~ ~ N U I

180 °

DECK PkXt~

t " SEE S ~ C T I O , " A ' - ' , , "

I

I i l-M

C011B. ~ASffER-~\ "~OOt',E NECK

COMB. ~ A S H E R ~

O° ~ANVAY

~.~ ~-~-~--e0LT CHANNEL

~ R A F I E R CHANNEL

III I II I[ I llJ l I I l i .!li. I I NOMINAL DIA. " l "

ELEVATION

BOLIE0 STEEL PUtIP SUCTION TANK

SEE CAULK[NG D E I M L ~ s I R I P GASKET

s*AWE-'A-NI~FNo' BOLI CHANNEL --/ ~ ~ - ~ OtIB.

~ f NUT

CHIME LAP

GASKEI STAVEJ

I ,EcT]o. -°-,"

STA~E-.X-k'II~/-- ~--.OT ~ S T R I P GASKET

SEE CAULKING O E T A I L - - ~ ' ~ ~ "-,'.. "-.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ / A

eo~o. SEC,.ENT J I I I SECIION "L'- "L"

STRIP G A S K ~ ~

STAYE,.V/ - - - - "-'---NUT !

CONe QASHER ~/ SECTION "F'- 'F" TYP. FOR I-RV. 2-R¥ ~ 3-RV STAWES

Figure B-14(c) Flange jointed bolted steel tank.

22-46 (Log #47)

113

N F P A 22 - - F 9 5 R O C

(Log #51) 22- 47 - (Figure B-14, 3-7.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERa Dick Davis, FactoryMutual Research Corp. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 22-19 RECOMMENDATION: "Dia." shou ld be dele ted f rom the reference to "Stub Overflow" and "VenC' Reference shou ld be made to Sections 11-5 and 3-7.2 for sizing. Also Section 3-7.2 belongs in Chapte r 2.

SUBSTANTIATION: Sizing of roof vents a n d overflow pipes are no t a funct ion of tank size but of the size of the fill line or pump. suct ion line. Sections 3-7.2 a n d 11-5 state specific des ign critena. Also, Section 3-7.2 (vents) shou ld be relocated to Chapter 2, General Informat ion as this criteria is no t specific to welded steel tanks alone. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

1. R e n u m b e r p roposed Figure B-14 as B-14(a) and revise as follows:

-I 2. In addit ion r e n u m b e r section 3-7.2 as section 2-6 an d r e n u m b e r the r emaln ingsec t ions accordinglyas indicated by the comment . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The figure will be r e n u m b e r e d as it is only to apply to welded steel tanks. Two new figures will be added to apply to bol ted tanks [see C o m m e n t 22-46 (Log #47)]. The figure is being modif ied as the commit tee in tends for it be gener ic in nature. P!pe&izes and certain d imens ions will vary depend in g u p o n file given installation.

The commit tee supports the r e n u m b e r i n g of cur ren t section 3-7.2 as its r equ i rements are in t ended to apply to all types of tanks not jus t welded ~te el tanks. - - NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 9 V O T E O N COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 N O T RETURNED: 1 Hochhause r

roof hatch

A ,z--

0

>= 0

in. PL. lap welded roe* r - vent (2)

J Roof hatch

i! Oon,, <o,. --,"! i

: i ii tl !i

Liquid l e v o ~ - indicator "- ] l

I I

Shell Inlay i J (two required) " - ~ ; I

" L .. . . . . . . 4, Ra,,e !i

Interior--~ ji ladder " ~ i i il

i

Suction nozzle with anti-vortex PL. /4 in. PL lap welded bottom

,l

Bottom

Shell to bottom

Elevation Welding detail

'7"'el rafter

Measure arc on J

_l outside of shell

t 7 ; _ ° -

\ _ / M I - ' , \ \ . I I X( ./'/ \/Lo. ~ Lg. of • / • £ of rafter

Plan manway

Notes: 1. See Section 11-5. 2. See Section 2-6.

Figure B-14(a) Welded steel suction tank. _

114

N F P A 22 - - F95 R O C

(Log #1 ) 22- 48 - (Figure B-15): Accept in Principle SUBMI'VI~R: Richard Leake, US Contractors, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-20 RECOMMENDATION: Delete all text that indicates a pipe size or d imens ion in the figure. SUBSTANTIATION: As drawn only 10" pipe is r e commended , the figure shou ld be generic.

I . , J / / ~t' l l~ ill. / / / j / . , ~ " t " = Shell thickness ( 7 I I / I / t" ," t , , , , , t - I . . / M I t l

S h e l / ~ _ . ~ . t " I t l t i . i i a . ~ . . . . .

x l i n . -a3 /4 in . LG. [~L I l i . . . . . . . .=.+~...~.,-.-~ .~c,-,,~.',.~.'.o.

...... _'c'!-'. ~ 15Q#

• f ~ flallg"ii~r"iill'lte . = : - = . . = - , "

90 in. L.R. weld ELL. ~ f ~ i t / I I . -~ -J,-.-.4.

v o . x , , . I(Y )e .IrlO-'t#8"iw-dia .-hote - i ' L [

" i l II I " ~ i ' I "il .-~ detail on \ ~ ._,1 I I II ~ this sheet \

, ~ (4) Angles 3 in. x 3 in. x 1,4 in. x 6 in. LG.J l~__l auk botto m Customer verify Shell j ~ ~ . _

Weld detail-

Figure 1]-15.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. . _ _ . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Couuni t tee AcUon and ~ ta tement to C o m m e n t 22-49 (Log #2). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITI'EE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhause r

115

N F P A 22 m F 9 5 R O C

(Log #2) 22-49- (Figure B-15): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Richard Leake, US Contractors, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-20 RECOMMENDATION: Delete all text that indicates a pipe size or dimension in the figure. SUBSTANTIATION: As drawn only 10 in. pipe is recommended, the figure should be generic.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Renumber proposed Figure B-15 as Figure B-15(a) and revise as follows:

I Shell ~

SCH. 40 steel pipe PL.

SCH. 40 steel 90 degree L.R. weld ELL.

X

Anti.vortex plate (48 in. x 48 in.)

114, ~,

/

(4) Angles 3 in. x 3 in. x 1/4 in. x 6 in. LG.-

detail on this sheet

rank bottom

Customer verify

Note: Large standard size anti-vortex plates (48 in. x 48 in.) are desireable as they are adequate for all size pump suction pipes normally used. Smaller plates may be used, however, they should comply with 11-2.13.

i /4 in. 1116 i n . g N°zzle

Weld detail

F'tgure B-15(a) Suction nozzle with anti-vortex plate for welded suction tanks.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The drawing is intended to be generic in nature. Pipe sizes and certain dimensions will vary depending upon the given installation. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: JOHNSTON: Reason same as for Comment 22-1 (Log #3).

116

(LngmS) re glS): Acceptin Prindple

Dtle Tumef/Keith McC, uire, Peabody TecTank ON 1 ~ ~ N ~ . ~-~0

RlgCOMMENI~ 'M~. Add drawing for bolted tanks.

.......... , .... _

If IF- i

S ~ T I O N : Clarified sumdard~ COMMITr]EE ACTION: Accept in Priai:iple. COMMrwrEE S T A ~ : See Cormm'ttee Action and Statement on Comment L~2-51 (Log #48). " NUMBER OF COblMI'FrEEbi]~IBER~ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMM1TIq~ ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NOT RETURNED: l Hod~auser

5 ~ e B-15): Acceptin Principle . " " RandoiphJ Stayln, Water and WaStewater Equipment

ers Asm. ON, LWRU4~J~&E 'NO:. 2~-~0:...

RECOMMENDATION: Indude another ~re~for bo~ed ~ . The ~welded only ~ drawing is deceiving.

TANK WALL - ~ \

REINFORCMENT SACKING PLATE--~

W Z 0 NOT

1

° A 2.1~

A ' ~ -

(CONCRETE Q~ FACTORY-COATED $rEEL) "

~ SLEEVE

p t = |lKItl

//~'~.~-,,

' I f ...... SUII~/INTIATIO~. None. . C O M M I T F t ~ A ~ , ~ : Accept in Principle. Revise thi.- subml~r s propos6d figures as follows and number

them as Figure B-l$(b) and Fgure B-15(c). See Figure B-15(c) on the following page.

TANK WALL --~

REINFORCMENT BACKING PLATE ~

x, LONG TURN RADIUS

r l/~ O NOT /LESS TH,~

,te" Mu~a.e,.e~

P ~ O T ! RADIUS

b- . , ~ SLEEVE

' l ~ ~tp FLA~ E

.,,,

I I

• °& . A ' A °

|CONCRETE OF FACTORY-COATED STEEL)

Irt~gu~ B-15(b) Typidd mg'tioo nomde with anti-vortex plate for lap jointed bolted tanks.

C ~ $ T A T i ~ [ E N T : Two new figures were added as there are differences between the suction nozzles and anti-vortex plates used for welded tanksand bolted tanks. The submittevs proposed figures are being modified as the committee intends for the figures to be genetic in nature. Pipe sizes and certain dimemiom will vary d e ~ . n ~ u~_n_ _~¢ ~___~_mm~'on. N U M B ~ OF ~ ~ ~ A G m L E TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMI'TTI~ A~ON;

~ T ~ : 8 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhanser

/

" 117

NFPA 22 - . F95 RO C

'---TANK INTERIOR

I50,L R.F.S~0

S LONG TURN RADIUS

u

TANK BOII~

i

g ~ t r e B-15(c) Typical suction nozzle with and-vortex plate for flange jointed bolted steel tanks.

(Log #$g) 22- 52 -(Figure B-15 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITIT.~ Francis Grillot, Jr., .4.0. Smith Harvestore Producls, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-20 RECOMMENDATION: Include another figure for bolted tanks.

SUBSTANTIATION: The "welded only" drawing is deceiving. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 22-51 (Log #48). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


f l /Z O NOT LESS T H A N

- - 6 " MINIMUM

TANK WALL - ~

REINFORCMENT BACKING P L A T E ~

~ --- TANK MOUNTING FLANGE. ROLL TO TANK RADIUS -

~' ~-PIPE FLANG

~ Z 0 ~,N - ~

.A" G

(CONCRETE OF FACTORY-COATED STEELI

I .

(Log #52) 22-53- (Figure I~15 Note (New)): Accept SIYBMITrER: Dick Da~As, Factory Mutual Research Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 22-20 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following note with the proposed "

'I~z'ge standard size anti-vortex plates (48 sq in.) are desirable as they are adequate for all size pump suction pipes normally used. Smaller plates may be used, however, they must comply with Section ll-2.13.-- Reference in B-15 and 11-2.13 should be to "anti-vortex"

SUBST~JqTIATION: The rate of.this plate is to break up the vortex, hence the term anti-vortex plate" is the appropriate one. The perimeter dimensions needed increase as a function of the pump suction pipe in order to control the velocity pressure between the edge of the plate and the floor as the flow rate through the suction line increases with larger pumps and suction lines. COI~T~ ACTION: Accept. As an editorial clarification, the proposed note is intended to apply

to Figures B-15(a) through B-15(c) [see Comments 2249 (Log #2) ,a~d 22-51 (Log #48) ]. Also, editorially replace "(48 sq in.)" with

(48 in. x 48 in.)" in the proposed note. NUMBER OF COMMITTEEMEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 8 NOT RETURNED: 1 Hochhauser

118

(log #3) comment on proposal no: 22-i · patterns or corrosion leaks, sa'uctural failures, or...

Documents