Wednesday, March 10, 2010  
You are here:  Forums Register  Login

2865 Executive Drive, Suite A, Clearwater Florida 33762  Phone: (727) 571-1444 Marketing Director: Mary McGarvey

Site DirectorySite Directory
    
     Member Login Member Login


   

  
PeachPit (Pearson Education)

Sharper Image

Pure Networks

First time users please register to join the forums.  Return users please login to participate.

Subject: OPW on Defense Regarding Overspill Bucket Defects
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
stevem
Posts:152

Consultant
02/01/2009 12:33 PM Alert 
A message detailing current and past problems with OPW overspill manholes follow:
 
From: Steve Miller [mailto:STEVEM@]
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 9:17 AM
To: Gene Pope
Cc: Andy Adams; Bruce Mitchell; Jim Smith; Ernest_Roggelin@doh.state.fl.us; Farid.Moghadam@dep.state.fl.us
Subject: RE: Material Inforamtion needed
 
Hello Gene,and thanks for your reply.  I obtained a copy of Underwriters Laboratories Canada ULS/ORD-C58.19-1992 "Spill Containment Devices For Underground Flammable Liquid Storage Tanks" to review in light of the myriad failures of spill buckets we are experiencing.  FYI, we met with counsel last year and opened up participation to FPMA members, and currently we are taking our case to national organizations including PMAA with Jim Smith's help.  We we are serious about fixing this problem and tired of non-response from the manufacturers.  It's not just the financial loss of having to replace these units over and over, but the greater financial loss probably is the insurance deductibles and cleanup costs we have to pay each time a spill bucket discharges.  The damages are becoming huge.
 
Many of our problems stem from the broken "bellows" of the buckets, but not all.  Recently we have found complete separation of the bottom of the bucket from the sides and holes/cracks in solid plastic buckets.  We believe the materials the buckets are not be as impervious to fuel and water as they should have been and therefore did not meet ULC standard ULS/ORD-C58.19-1992 which is the proof that was offered to DEP that the buckets are adequate.  DEP approved the buckets for use based on manufacturers assertions that the buckets met the ULC standard, and that is proving to be false.  At what point does it become fraud?
 
In the past year, we have had to replace broken spill buckets at 5 or 6 sites and we have saved the buckets for future testing.  Right now, we have three OPW 500 sites that are less than two years old (two are right at a year old) that contain product in the interstice, have ruptured seals, and/or are loose at the surface every month.  Adams Tank and Lift installed all three and they have tried repeatedly to fix the buckets to no avail.  We have an OPW 700 site that is barely a year old that starting this month is collecting fuel in the interstice.  This is our first OPW 700 bucket to fail and very disappointing since this and the Edge are our preferred devices.  I have some questions for the manufacturers based upon ULS/ORD-C58.19-1992, which standard the manufacturers are claiming to meet in order to be approved by DEP.
 
1. ULS/ORD-C58.19-1992 was written in January 1992.  Given all the failures of spill buckets, do you think that it is/was an adequate standard?  Or do the failures indicate that the buckets never met the standard in the first place?
 
2. The second paragraph of the preface says "A product that complies with these requirements will not necessarily be acceptable if, when examined and tested, it is found to have features not covered by this document which may impair the result contemplated by these requirements".  How can this standard be used for approval of double-wall spill buckets in Florida - do you think double-wall spill buckets were discussed in January 1992?
 
3. In Section 2.8, the definition of "Spill Containment Device" begins "A liquid tight container fitted to the fill inlet of a tank and intended to catch, retain and provide for the evacuation of any product spilled at the time of filling."  We're filling a warehouse with devices that did not "retain".
 
4. Section 3.3 states "The materials, workmanship and construction of a device shall be such as to provide continued operation over an extended period of time under the conditions expected to be in the environment for which the device is designed".  When we install a petroleum storage system, we expect the components to last the life of the system which is usually 20-30 years.  A one or two year warranty in this "environment" is ridiculous as it does not constitute an extended period of time and therefore does not meet the standard.
 
5. Section 4.2 discusses materials and uses the words "metal or suitable plastics".  It also requires "Non-metallic materials... shall have such characteristics that their properties will not be affected... in a manner to cause a failure of the equipment or a hazardous condition during the normal expected life"  which has already been defined above as "an extended period of time".  We believe a bucket that fails in less than 20 years has been shown not to meet this section and therefore fraudulently obtained regulatory approval.
 
For the moment, please advise us whether we can expect some help from OPW for the four new sites with broken double-wall spill buckets as previously described.
 
Sincerely,
Steve Miller
R. Steven Miller, Environmental Manager
Heron Holdings, Inc., Risser Oil Corporation, Rally Stores, Inc., Petroleum Transport Lines
2865 Executive Drive
Clearwater, FL 33762
Office Phone: 727-573-4000 X259
Mobile Phone: 727-421-7423
Fax: 727-572-9075
www.therissercompanies.com
www.rallystores.com

From: Gene Pope [mailto:gpope@]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:48 PM
To: Steve Miller
Cc: Andy Adams; Debbie Keech
Subject: FW: Material Inforamtion needed
Steve,
 
Andy Adams asked that we send you the attached UL information on OPW spill containers. I have attached 3 items as follows:
 
1.)    Copy of ULC file for various OPW spill container models, which all OPW spill container models are listed under ULC file#MH27236.
2.)    Copy of UL guide information for spill containers
3.)    Copy of UL approval for the Edge series spill containers, which also fall under the same file#MH27236
 
You will notice the spill containers are approved by ULC, which is Underwriters Laboratories of Canada.  ULC is the only division of UL that has a standards to test spill containers to, so manufacturer’s of spill containers have to go to ULC for approval since the domestic division of UL does not have a standard.
 
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.
 
Thank you,
Gene Pope
Pope & Associates, Inc.
Phone: 813-888-9909x12
Fax: 813-888-9759
Cell: 813-431-2009
From: Andy Adams [mailto:AndyAdams@]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 6:18 PM
To: Gene Pope; Debbie Keech
Cc: Steve Miller
Subject: Material Inforamtion needed
 
Please get us the info that Steve is requesting. He is looking for OPW single wall buckets, OPW 500, 700, 700 stainless steel and the new EDGE.
Hi Andy - please ask your distributors for third party test information and/or UL information on their spill bucket products.  If you like, they can communicate directly with me.  Just hook me up.  I copied Jeremy Moses so you don't have to ask him.
 
Thanks,
Steve
Thanks,
Andrew J Adams President
4567 131st Avenue North
Clearwater, FL. 33762
(727) 540-0931 Fax: (727) 540-0848 
Authorized Dealer
stevem
Posts:152

Consultant
02/01/2009 12:38 PM Alert 

Marcel Moreau responded:

Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 11:16 PM

To: Roggelin, Ernest

Subject: RE: Material Information needed

Ernest,

Thanks for forwarding this. These are some very good questions.

Someone will need to invest some money to investigate the common causes of failure of these spill buckets (looks like someone is at least holding on to the evidence). I suspect there will be some basic environmental issues (heat, cold, fatigue from too much flexing, oxidation or some other aging process of the material(s)), and/or some basic incompatibility with product or product vapors (spill buckets were never meant to contain product for any length of time - sort of like the flex pipe defense of improper operation because no one drained the sumps of product within 24 hours).

This might be a case for Tom Schruben if anyone is serious about suing anyone.

Bottom line is an observation that I made some time ago and continues to hold true: In the petroleum marketing industry, equipment manufacturers use their paying customers for their product development.

Best regards,

Marcel

stevem
Posts:152

Consultant
02/01/2009 12:41 PM Alert 

Ernest Roggelin replied:

Just so you know, I distributed your email to:
 
All the Local Programs and DEP Districts in the State
Paul Miller, EPA Washington
Kevin Henderson, Mississippi
Laura Chaddock, California
Marcel Moreau, consultant
Ben Thomas, consultant
Jim Howard, Hess
Willo Smith, 7-Eleven
Mott-Smith Consulting
 
Ernest M. Roggelin
Environmental Manager
Pollutant Storage Tank Programs
727-538-7277 ext 1136
727-538-7293 fax
 
stevem
Posts:152

Consultant
06/06/2009 4:32 AM Alert 
June 6, 2009, UPDATE

OPW has worked with Adams Tank and Lift to retrofit the problem units with a different type of retainer screws at the surface and new seals throughout. Some of the units continued to exhibit problems that were solved by installing swivel fill adapters. OPW's solution to the problematic location of the double-wall interstice inspection port at the bottom of the primary containment has still not been addressed by OPW.

The person who supervised the repairs was clearly more knowledgable than all the tank professionals and county inspection personnel that attended to witness the repairs. He stated that the buckets should be kept clean and dry at all times making the location of the inspection port moot. He criticized our fix that consists of installing a riser pipe and threaded dipsticks from Emco Wheaton. We continue to have problems with that fix since inspectors worry that the shortened dipstick will be relied upon by inspectors when it should not be used for any purpose other than guiding the dipstick and maintaining the integrity of the dipstick device. It also still allows fluid to leak into the interstice if the fluid level in the primary containment rises above the top of the dipstick. We have a new fix.

The new fix requires installing the OPW gauge type interstice monitoring devices that are used in Edge buckets. I will post an update.
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Forums > Fuel Storage Tanks > Petroleum Equipment Issues > OPW on Defense Regarding Overspill Bucket Defects



ActiveForums 3.5
Home  |  Contacts  |  Tanks  |  Portals  |  Secure Data  |  Forums  |  Gallery  |  Links
Copyright 2005 Downsteam Data Corporation   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use