Article

Question and (no) answer

Where are the details in new product containment safety code changes?

In 30 years of writing news and features of all types, I can’t remember one with fewer answers to fundamental questions than this month’s story on the safety code changes that go into law one year from now.

In a nutshell, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 58 changes aim to improve product containment by requiring thermal activation and remote emergency shutdown capability in storage vessels with a water capacity of more than 4,000 gallons. The retrofits apply to vessels owned by marketers, wholesalers and customers. Tank owners were given 10 years to complete the upgrades.

I spoke with more than a dozen people – safety professionals, service contractors, propane marketers, engineers, equipment manufacturers and salesmen – for this story. All are bright, experienced guys who deal with this important issue every day in the field. Yet nobody could tell me:

• How many of these storage tanks are in service?
• How many of the targeted tanks have been retrofitted to date (and, accordingly, how many are left to do)?
• Is it possible to retrofit everybody by the July 1, 2011, deadline?
• Will extensions be given for any reason?
• What are the consequences for tank owners who are not in compliance by deadline?
• How many customers own their own propane tanks?
• Will compliance enforcement be equal for propane marketers and customers who own their tanks?
• Will an 11th-hour deadline rush make equipment or installation unavailable?
• Will propane deliveries to storage vessels not up to code be halted in the name of safety?

Many of the missing answers are muddled in caveats, special circumstances and historical perspective.

For example, the code changes cannot be enforced in 14 states that have not adopted the 2001 edition of NFPA 58. Tank owners may not be off the hook, however. It’s likely that insurance carriers will require them to make the upgrades as a condition of renewing their coverage.

I was told that even the multi-state marketers can’t precisely identify all of the tanks they own in the field. Given the millions of customers and layers of company acquisitions each has had over decades, I’m not surprised.

And there must be thousands of independent family businesses – many in their third or fourth generation – that have been setting tanks for 60 years or more. My guess is their records going back before World War II probably aren’t mint.

So, exactly how are the government enforcement agencies supposed to have the slightest clue about inspecting?

I have no doubt that the vast majority of retailers are safety conscious and will spend tens of thousands of dollars to get their bulk plants up to snuff by deadline. But surely there will be more than a handful who will wait and see what happens with enforcement before making that investment. As one service contractor told me, “Nobody wants to spend money for something that isn’t going to make them money.”

I also assume that for every conscientious propane company that won’t fill a customer tank that’s in violation there will be another marketer willing to do the job and steal a customer. What kind of competitive dynamic will that produce?

I do believe that the changes are good policy that will lessen the threat of a major product release or BLEVE. The technology required in the code will give industry personnel and safety responders a chance to contain and minimize leaks before they become disasters. Who would argue against any such safety improvement?

But it sure would be nice to have a few more facts before the changes become the law of the land.