Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cngmike
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    As I remember the 3 year 36,000 mile rule and tank shielding came From a LA transit case because of a tank mounted under floor that had been repeatedly damaged on its route that blew when Buffer filling. Tank shields were modified in the mid 90's when a tank blew after it was allowed to sit in battery acid because there were no drain holes in the PVC covers. As time goes on we will see other modifications to these regulations after incidents have happened.
    Dave M. Knows far more about these incidents than I do.

    When I have pointed out concerns to operator I always try to do it in a friendly and helpful manor giving possible solutions and vendors when ever possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • mostlyharmless22
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    Your fears about a rock compromising the integrity of the tank are unfounded. These tanks can actually take a bullet. Now if a piece of rebar hit it just right and knocked off the hose or something, it would cause a blow-out and throw some debris but it wouldn't explode. If you want to be afraid of something, be afraid of the cars/trucks filling up with and driving around with gasoline in flimsy tanks. They are more dangerous.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lakewood90712
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    3 posts removed by staff.

    Way off topic . Violation of the rules and t.o.s.

    Folks, keep it constructive , or take it somewhere else.


    Forum Staff.
    Last edited by Lakewood90712; 08-13-2008, 04:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Highmarker
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    From now on...when I see a NGV that "doesn't look" safe, I'm saying something to the driver. If there is nobody enforcing this issue, then we as a NGV community ought to speak up.

    Leave a comment:


  • CNGLO
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    Originally posted by krnorth View Post
    affirmative, it was 21st in ogden.


    You non helpful posting people go find something better to do; leave the forums for those who are interested in sharing helpful information and can be cordial.
    cordial? Lol

    Leave a comment:


  • larrycng
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    Now that I'm up on my soap box.

    Let's go back to the basics of the issue; There is a vehicle that looks dangerous. The general consensus is that it needs shields over the tanks as per industry standard NFPA 52, which to my knowledge does not have the force of law in Utah as it does in Calif.

    Why don't those of us who have the knowledge of the industry standards go over and "nicely" let person driving the vehicle that there is a safety consideration (maybe they will tell the vehicle owner). Why not call the company and let the company owner know about the situation. He is doing a good thing but needs to be aware of the potental safety hazard.

    Why not contact your local legisative representative and suggest that the national standards (NFPA -52 and CGA C-6.4) be enacted in to statute law?

    The local fire marshall or State motor carrier inspectors might be interested especially if a commerical vehicle is involved? Believe me the fire marshall is familiar with the National Fire Protection Association, just guide him to the correct standard.

    Now I'll take the flowers out of my thin white hair and get off my soap box.

    Later

    Larrycng

    Leave a comment:


  • krnorth
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    Affirmative, it was 21st in Ogden.

    jblue...You're right, I don't have to protect anyone's privacy if it's in a public place, but that's what I choose to do...if you don't like it, then read another thread. Seems like you might have something better to do that post LAME non useful replies.

    cnglo...coming to your aid? that's really funny. Anyway, I don't think there is any BLOWING anything out of proportion....I post a thread that clearly states my opinion and it's so basic and you all are REALLY throwing this thing out of proportion for sure....re-read the thread and if you don't agree well it's because you and jblue and the likes started hyperventilating and typing faster than your minds could think.

    There is absolutely NO issue of any "legal" misconduct with what I said. I stated merely an opinion; I made no facts or claims as to prove my statements harmful towards any specific person or company. I have owned a business for more than 10 years so I am very familiar with various legalities.

    What I did is the same as taking a picture of some pure cane sugar and saying...wow, in my opinion this would cause cavities....

    ..oh crap, here comes the sugar companies and the public to sue me because I stated my opinion that is WRONG oh no....!!!!


    You non helpful posting people go find something better to do; leave the forums for those who are interested in sharing HELPFUL information and can be cordial.

    Highmarker...agreed, your post is worth reading, it's got some basic information and your opinion. But be careful stating your opinon you might get hammered for it haha.

    Leave a comment:


  • Highmarker
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    Originally posted by CNGLO View Post
    Umm . . . in Utah it doesn't say much. Many of the Questar stations are at gas stations. The Tesoro I usually fill up at is a regular gas station with a CNG dispenser in between two gasoline pumps. I'm not familiar with the Chevron station in the picture, however, so I don't know if there is CNG at that station.

    krnorth, where did you take the photos?
    Looking at the photos, the picture was taken at the 21st street Chevron station in Ogden, Utah. And by looking at where the truck is parked with respect to the location of the CNG pumps, it would seem that his filling receptacle is located in the front of the vehicle (a classic location for an aftermarket conversion).

    Also, there is nothing required of the tank manufacturer when it comes to mounting tanks. It is in the best interest of the manufacturer to have "guidelines" for installation, but if tanks are sold second-hand, then there goes the guidelines.

    krnorth,

    If it was me, which it might be soon (given the number of CNG vehicles in Utah), I would have done the same thing you did: Get out of there ASAP!
    Last edited by Highmarker; 08-07-2008, 10:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CNGLO
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    Originally posted by jetboatjohnny View Post
    The guy is filling up at a gasoline station, what does that tell you?
    Umm . . . in Utah it doesn't say much. Many of the Questar stations are at gas stations. The Tesoro I usually fill up at is a regular gas station with a CNG dispenser in between two gasoline pumps. I'm not familiar with the Chevron station in the picture, however, so I don't know if there is CNG at that station.

    krnorth, where did you take the photos?

    Leave a comment:


  • jetboatjohnny
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    The guy is filling up at a gasoline station, what does that tell you?

    Leave a comment:


  • CNGLO
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    Thanks for coming to my aid jblue. You are absolutely correct on the expectation of privacy.

    Just some clarification: We don't find the words "right to privacy" in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court wrote the "right to privacy" into the Constitution by saying it was in the "penumbra" or shadow of the other enumerated individual liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The constitutionally protected right to privacy is a right against government intrusion into our private lives. The Court used this reasoning in its Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

    Here, we are concerned about an individual suing another individual for a libelous statement. For the most part, an individual's ability to sue another individual for a violation of privacy is a matter of state tort law, not federal law. An expression of opinion is not libelous. Thus, krnorth's "opinion" is not libelous. That is also why newspapers can say bad things about people on their opinion pages and why we always hear the news media using "alleged" before referring to the crime committed by a perpetrator. This is also why my earlier post suggested that we simply express our opinions by stating whether we "think" it is legal. I suppose I could have said whether we think it is "dangerous" or a "safety issue." It doesn't matter to me.

    As for the possibly libelous (just joking ) "DUH!" comment attacking my personal well-being and causing me great emotional distress (just joking again ): Whether an installation is illegal or is a safety issue is the same in my book. Both can kill. If I'm dead, I'm dead and I won't be quibbling over whether the tank was possibly "illegal and a tank safety issue" or simply possibly a "tank safety issue."

    Let's just hope that this tank doesn't get literally blown out of proportion as did the tank on the SuperShuttle van in California.

    Leave a comment:


  • jblue
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    Originally posted by krnorth View Post
    ... I have an obligation to protect someone elses privacy as would I request mine.
    No, you do not. What you do have an obligation to do is educate yourself about your rights as codified in law, otherwise you will end up saying something that is completely wrong even if it is your "opinion".

    In order to claim a violation of a Fourth Amendment right, a person must first establish that he or she has an expectation of privacy. Case law has held over and over and over again that there can be no expectation of privacy in areas open and exposed to public view. Such as a gas station, for example.

    Sorry .. that is just how it is.
    Last edited by jblue; 08-06-2008, 02:50 PM. Reason: spealing

    Leave a comment:


  • krnorth
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    Wow, some people sure blow things out of proportion!

    All I said was I feel it's somewhat of a safety issue, nothing to do with IS IT LEGAL? DUH! (CNGLO)

    That's why I put in the subject of this thread (MY OPINION)....

    Anyway, this particular vehicle is NOT a late model, the tank said it expired in 2010, so you can date that vehicle back to probably a 1995 (based on expiration of 15 years on tanks).

    It just seems a bit strange that it has no protection, imagine driving down the street and a piece of rebar falls off the truck in front of you and it whacks that tank. (I have hit rebar before, it did some hefty damage to my truck). Of course you might say the chances are SLIM but it could happen. We all know the roadways have tons of debry on them.

    Anyway, I'd recommend those tanks be covered with something that will actually protect it. You have a rock or whatever whack that tank and ding it just right and it can threaten the integrity of it. Then you fill up with 3300PSI or so and that's a bad recipe. That's all I was saying.


    I blocked out the truck information because I'm not pointing fingers, I have an obligation to protect someone elses privacy as would I request mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • larrycng
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    You are right Bill, however, you might take a closed look at the cab of the truck. It is a fairly late model GM product at least post 2000 my probably no more than 1 to 2 year old. The tanks appear to PST type 2 steel (check the valve port) a good product.

    The stone shields are the big question as you said, but I'll bet the cylinders are pushing throw-away date. A detailed visual inspection is called for. I'll also bet the cylinders were not inspected before being installed on the vehicle.

    later

    Larrycng

    Leave a comment:


  • afvman
    replied
    Re: Tank Safety Issue (My opinion)

    Gentlepeople,

    We're supposed to be the experts here and know what's safe and what isn't. There is an issue, but propably not the one you're thinking of.

    The location is certainly not the issue and the mounting appears to be with factory brackets and insulators from what I can see. The cylinders are marked properly but, there is no stone shield or protection from UV damage.

    The regulations have changed for both of these items with earlier versions allowing for this installation. So, as certified inspectors we're taught to compare the standards that were in force when the vehicle was converted to those in effect today and make recommendations accordingly.

    In this case I'd recommend a Detailed Visual Inspection first, then, depending on the results, suggest a stone shield and cover be added.

    But, I wouldn't run away.

    Stay safe,

    afvman/Bill

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X