UL-142 versus DOT-406 (or MC-306) 1

[amceng]

Does anybody know if a Oil Delivery Truck's storage tank, built to MC-306 or DOT-406 std (found on 49CFR Part 178 and 180, for Motor Vehicle Cargo Tank, Design and Fabrications), meets UL-142, (Steel Aboveground Tanks for flammable and Comb Liqs.)?

To simplify the question, I am trying to use a oil delivery truck (which meets DOT-406) as an aboveground storage tank (incorporating appropriate secondary containment). Local regs. require compliace to UL-142.

Any ideas?

ariel

 

[stookeyfpe]

A MC 306 or DOT 406 tank vehicle does not equal a UL 142 tank. The indicated tank vehicles are generally constructed of aluminum versus UL 142 which requires carbon steel. You may find an old carbon steel DOT tanker - however my memory seems to recall that the tank heads are thinner than what is required by UL 142.

The use of a DOT tank vehicle would also be a violation of NFPA 30, section 4.2.3.1.1. This addresses the standards of construction for ASTs. It does not reference 49 CFR as an acceptable standard for the construction of ASTs. It does reference UL 142 along with the appropriate API and ASME standards.

Finally, if the installation is in the United States and the jurisdiction has adopted the International Fire Code, such an installation is a fire code violation. IFC section 3404.2.2 states Tank cars and tank vehicles shall not be used as storage tanks. The intent is to prevent someone from bringing a junk tanker onto a property and converting it to an aboveground storage tank. As a authority having jurisdiction for the 5th largest Fire Department in the US one would be amazed as to what people will try to use as an aboveground tank.