Having an SIL- or SIS-rated device will increase the reliability and would be beneficial during the safety shutdown of a device. The SIS also applies to the process side of the safety shutdown system, but ultimately an SIS device provides higher reliability and has a higher safety standard. Question: What’s the difference between an automated overfill protection system (AOPS) and the SIS safety instrument system (SIS)?Īnswer: The AOPS is specific to the tank itself and to the filling operation or process, which is part of the procedures that you use to handle an overfill situation at your facility. But, if the equipment is not automated and does not meet category 2 or 3 requirements, you must have the site attended at all times during product transfer.
#Api 2350 4th edition update#
Due to these new–and very specific recommendations–many operators are finding that their equipment is not suitable for a category 3 (unattended) tank.įortunately, the specification does give you time to update your equipment and provides options that you can use to categorize your tanks in the meantime. The 4th edition introduces many new recommendations, including the tank categories and the requirement for an independent high level alarm. Question: Are tank categories 1 (fully attended) and 2 (semi-attended) still in use as technology improvements have taken place?Īnswer: The API RP 2350 4th edition update is a significant change from the 3rd edition. These are the only stipulations, and you can apply them anywhere along the line. The API RP 2350 recommendations define an eligible above-ground tank by the size of the tank, how the product is delivered, and which type of liquid is in the tank. Question: Does API RP 2350 apply to upstream industries or only to refining?Īnswer: It can apply across both upstream and downstream markets. For devices that sit idle for long periods of time before any fluid reaches them, it is especially critical to test them on a regular basis to ensure that they are working properly.
Proof testing per API RP 2350 does not require the completion of a wet test however, performing a simulation and doing a test will show you if a device is working or not. But the ultimate proof tests are the ones that physically cause the device to move or actually simulate the fluid. Many proof tests are simply an electronic simulation, perhaps just a relay positioning change. When you do a proof test of a single device, you can use an electronic simulation that sends a signal back to the control room or to the operator to indicate that the device is in a functional state. Question: How can an owner/operator determine if their proof testing of overfill prevention system (OPS) equipment is adequate?Īnswer: With proof testing, you are trying to determine the status of all of the components of your OPS, and a wet test is the ultimate way to see if the entire loop is working correctly and operating as designed. So, while it’s not a law but, it makes good sense. We do know that insurance companies are asking their clients to comply with the new API RP 2350 standards–and that your liability will be mitigated if an incident should occur and you have followed the recommendations of API RP 2350.
It is a recommendation that API published as a self-policing tool for the industry. Answer: API RP 2350 is not a regulation or a law.
0 kommentar(er)
