Options for small diameter Aboveground Double Wall Piping

[davster01]

Hi,

I work for the Canadian Government. Recently the Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations were enacted. One of the requirements is to have a secondary containment system for both the tank and piping. While for the tank part it is easy, it is not so straightforward.

We hired a consultant to provide us with a design for a double piping about 50 feet long connection a 10000 gallon fuel tank farm (4x2500 gal) to a small day tank powering a small genset. The consultant came back with a single-wall piping design claiming double-wall piping could not be implemented for such a small diamter. Is this true? I take it was the more the 90 deg bends and solenoid control valves that pose the problem.

Could any of you shed some light on this or provide references?

Thank you

 

[BigInch]

Probably.

I'd put it in tripple wall pipe, because now you can't inspect he first one for corrosion and that will eventually leak into the second one, which can't be properly designed for the temperature extremes you get in Canada anyway. Contraction of the outer wall pipe will probably buckle the inside pipe at the corrosion weakened spots and wind up being the actual cause of the leak. I think the Canadian double wall piping regulations are not necessary and counterproductive, if not outright damaging. Sounds like a regulation we need in Spain. We have a lot of them that were implemented without any forethought whatsoever. Better off with a drip pan. IMO.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[davster01]

I should probably point out that the Regulations leave the option of using single wall piping granted that a monthly visual inspection and inventory reconcialiation is carried. Now for our sites, this is just not an option has these sites are unmanned. hence the need for double wall piping.

I wonder if we could not design a sheet metal "trench" around the piping instead. We could then retain the possibility of inspecting visually the piping. All valves along the line could be contained...

I recognize that this might look odd especially for an aboveground system but I'm just trying to be creative in meeting the Regs...

 

[BigInch]

Empty the pipes, close the valves and lock them, when not in use.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[SNORGY]

I have never dealt with these particular regulations, but I wonder if it would be worth looking at "pretending" the piping was for sulphur service and just installing jacketed pipe - with no jacket fluid.

You might end up with points of "single containment" at jacket terminations (flanges etc.) but that might be a more manageable scenario.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[BigInch]

Box the elbows.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[MJCronin]

Davester...

Would this product line suit your needs ?

http://www.permapipe.com/web/products.aspx

If not, why not..??

 

[davster01]

MJCronin,

Sorry for not responding sooner. I am looking at the link you provided and cannot see why this would not be suitable. I am looking at the Double-Pipe Series. Now just need to understand how joints are made and elbows integrated to this system. I also will have to check some logistics details such as price and delivery times...

Thanks for the reference!

 

[5689]

DAVster01,

I aslo work for the federal goverment in Canada and have same problems as you have. I'm trying to find since then some double-walled above ground pipes but they dont seem to exist. Perma-Pipe is very interesting but I did contact them last year and did not find something that suit my needs. Could you give me a follow-up on your findings and on how you think you will proceed with your problems?

Regulation ask for secondary containment (or visual inspection or precision leak test) for above ground pipe installed before 12 june 2008 but be aware that for new installation they asked nothing (there's a hole in the regulation)for above ground pipes; look carefully at the article 14 and the reference to CCME.

I did ask Environnement Canada if I build a custom made box around above ground pipes (with traps to look if there is any product leaking) as secondary containement if that will suits the regulation and they said yes.

If there is a way to contact each other outside the forum let me know I could send you the official that EC gave me.

thanks

 

[zdas04]

If I had to comply with this outrageous legislation, I would lay the thinnest wall HDPE that I could find as a conduit and then pull the production pipe through it. I've done this for downsizing a flowstream (original line was 16 inch HDPE and the production had dropped off to the point where the 16 inch line was at separator velocities and was causing operational problems, we pulled a 4-inch spoolable composite through it, leaving the HDPE intact with a pressure gauge on it--resealing the ends was tricky, but I was able to do it with a transition to steel, a flange and a pierced blind).

Simply using double walled pipe forces all the horrible problems that BigInch referenced.

David

 

[5689]

David,

thanks for the idea, I agree with you but on many site I can have a monthly visual inspection so no need to bother with secondairy containment but on my remote site on islands in the middle of the gulf of St-Lawrence and in the artic I cant afford monthly visual inspection for obvious reason so I'm lokking for alternatives that will satisfy the legislator...

Pierre

 

[lamontagne]

Hello,

How about putting in standard double wall undergroud piping and containment systems with a minimum of ground cover? For example OPW flexworks with transition sump. The higher cost should be offset by the reliability.
I'm told they can install the pipe even in permafrost environments, as long as the bedding is correctly done.

regards

Michel Lamontagne

 

[ECSTSRegs]

Let me begin by saying I am not a lawyer nor an engineer for that matter, but I think I have a good understanding of the Regs mentioned in this thread and I would like to share this knowledge.

I will start by saying that I don't see where these Regs require either secondary containment or double-wall piping for newly installed ABOVEGROUND piping (the Regs require this only for UNDERGROUND piping (paragraph 14(1)(c)). Perhaps you are replacing the piping on a system installed before the Regs and you are using secondary containment to circumvent subsection 23(1) of the Regs? I am not certain, but I doubt that 23(1) was intended to capture new piping (assuming it complies with subsections 14(1) and (5) of the Regs) on an old system, but just for the sake of argument, let's assume it does.

Also, 5689 says "for new installation they asked nothing (there's a hole in the regulation)for above ground pipes; look carefully at the article 14 and the reference to CCME." He is not the first person to interpret the Regs this way: that is because subsection 14(1) of the Regs excludes CCME Sentence 5.2.1(1) entirely and creates the illusion of a loophole.

But a possible reason for this is that EC only wanted part of Sentence 5.2.1(1) to apply while they also needed to make additional precisions with regard to piping requirements for new systems. Regardless, subsection 14(5) closes the apparent loophole by specifying some standards for piping, including those from CCME Clauses 5.2.1(1)(a) to (c) and (g).

I have not read these standards, but judging from the titles of ASTM A 53 and CAN/CSA Z245.1-98, if Davster01 really wants to use double-wall aboveground piping, Perma-Pipe DOUBLE-PIPE™Type-HT (carbon steel inside a carbon steel coated containment) might meet one or both of these standards (mentioned in CCME Clause 5.2.1(1)(a) and (b)) and would thus comply with subparagraph 14(5)b)i) of the Regs if they bare such certification marks: one would need to check with Perma-Pipe to see if they have certified this product to ASTM A 53 and/or CAN/CSA Z245.1-98.

But because it does not seem to me that secondary containment is required for NEW aboveground piping under the Regs, I think there are many more conventional options available for Davster01

Hope this helps.

 

[davster01]

ECSTSRegs,

Thank you for shedding some light on those regulations. Sorry for not responding earlier.

Just to clarify our project: We our preparing to replace the piping because the building housing the Power Generator was relocated.

While it is true that other options exists in very few remote instances the cost and logistics of getting to the site are not as simple as some regulator might have envisionned...I believe that this project is one of these odd instances!

Nonetheless, you are rigth in that subsection 14(5) of the Regs close off the loophole-something I had overlooked previously. Although, the project team took a different approach - we consulted with EC regional offices and Fire Marshalls - Georg Fischer Contain-IT™ - it is evident that the Perma-Pipe (or similar) is likely the most elegant solution.

Best Regards,
davster01