Shipunloading ULP via Hoses 1

The setup might be connecting the hose (with electric drive reel?) to an onshore pipeline flange, short pup and an immediately downstream pipeline valve connected to hard pipe going to the pump suction manifold. There should be a sump tank run from the pup upstream of the pipeline valve connection, so that once the pipeline valve and quick make/break is closed off, any remaining product trapped there can be drained to the sump and pumped back up into the pipeline, or somewhere else, after the unloading op is completed. I doubt you'd need N2, or must you drain and inert the pipeline after pumping up the hill. What product is it?


If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.

You don't give much of a project background to go on. Is this a marina or an island fuel distribution center?

Generally, the tankers should anchor in a Bay, on the coastline of the Island and discharge by pumping through floating or underwater pipelines to bulk storage tanks (pumping station) ashore.

The regulations will depend on the country that you are operating in. The Coast Guard would be the contact for the country's maritime regulations.

The linked document should give you an idea of the scope.

The rest of the story:

Well the Coast Guard would work for the USA. I think stanier is normally in Australia or New Zealand side of the world.

Patricia Lougheed

******

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

Oh right. "ULP" = Unleaded Gasoline. I would think that there is no need to inert, unless working in closed spaces with escaping "vapours", or inerting and opening a pig launcher/receiver with residual gasoline "vapours".

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.

Fuel loading/unloading is covered under maritime law. The project will also need to be acceptable to building code where the project is located.

Hi All,

ULP unleaded petrol. Yes is it in the South Pacific and will be under ASutralian jurisdiction. it is very difficult to get responses from the shipping company as to their practices so I was hoping someone versed in these practices would provide further insight.

Slops tank will be provided on shore with capacity to pump intot he pipeline. Owner wants the pipeline evacuated after use for security reasons. N2 purging with a driven pig is being considered. Unloading is only infrequently because of seasonal swells making it impossible for shipping to safely get near to the island.

I wasnt sure if the ship was responsible for emptying the hose to shore or the shoreline company purging the contents back to the ship.

I do not want to identify the project as there is some political sensitivity about the location.

“The beautiful thing about learning is that no one can take it away from you.”
---B.B. King

Looks like most of your questions are answered in this report.

Nothing I know about in high seas laws covers the unloading operation itself, although there are pollution control and VOC emission conventions at apply to the ship ... only; not the port.

Don't see anything in the other links that would directly apply to the unloading operation itself either. Although local country and regions could vary from what I have seen, all "regulations" in every region I have investigated (not AU/NZ), deal with spill and VOC emission control and required emergency spill retaining booms and skimmer equipment, nothing pretaining to the actual facilities required for transfer piping, except for the occasional mention of the QA/QD connections, automatic shutdown valves on the tank side of the transfer, typically to avoid tank overfill, and some rather unspecified leak detection means, vapour and liquid, which could mean just a visual watch posted for liquid leaks. VOC balance lines and controls might not apply to the location involved, if it is remote as you would leave me to believe, or if the tank being loaded falls under a certain (often rather small) volume. If so, those would be applicable to the tank installation, not the pipeline or connection, other than that another pipe run to act as the balancing line would be required. Port authorities have their own practices, as do petroleum terminal operators, which may require specific equipment, such as the loading arms.

I would think that inerting with N2 would actually present more operational dangers than whatever else they think they are worried about. If it is an infrequent operation and they don't want to leave the lines full for corrosion or other reason, a pigging system would probably be the best bet to clear an uphill pipeline.


If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.

Found a PFD of a recent proposal.
These loading arms (only) are purged from an onshore tank.
No vapor balancing.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.

The ship's Master has the responsibility to protect the ship and therefore must approve all cargo loading/unloading operations.

Regarding:

"Nothing I know about in high seas laws covers the unloading operation itself, although there are pollution control and VOC emission conventions at apply to the ship ... only; not the port."

see

Unloading fuel from tanker ships has inherent risk. This risk at Christmas Island is mitigated by Gaseng Petroleum (Christmas Island) Pty Ltd developing and implementing practices that accord with the requirements of the “International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals” which is the standard reference for the safe operation of oil tankers and the terminals they serve. The document sets out a number of key requirements including but not limited to those relating to:
a) Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans;
b) Safety and Fire Protection;
c) Safety Management;
d) Operator Training Requirements;
e) Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Requirements;
f) Operational Requirements; and
g) Precautions on Ship and Terminal during Cargo Handling.


d) Commonwealth Legislation including
i) EPBC Act; and
ii) Control of Naval Waters Act, 1918.

Nobody is arguing that it isn't dangerous, or there are not procedures, or 50 different ways to do it right. The isgintt is a nice document, (thanks for linking) but it is a standard, not a regulation or law that I can see (perhaps it is referenced by some local laws somewhere, I'm not sure about that, and it appears to be 99.99% concerned with ship ops only, although I have not read all of it yet. Nothing there I can see requires any more piping components that I see so far, except for their detail of an isolation flange which probably isn't needed on a hose connection, than what's on the PFD. Pigging is optional, nitrogen is optional. Surge control is always required by the piping codes, where needed, but other than those items required by piping design codes, where is any of any of it required in a law or regulation not associated specifically with a requlation for air or water pollution control?.
Anyway, thanks again for the link. It is a nice document.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.

OK, stanier was asking for standards and I was talking about regulations and laws for some reason.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.

Bimr,

Many thanks for the link. It certainly answers many questions. it also highlights what has to be agreed betweeen operator, shipping line and designer in order that the facilites are complete.

As for laws and regulations they can give meaning to this standard by Act

“The beautiful thing about learning is that no one can take it away from you.”
---B.B. King

Certainly they can. But do they?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.

Probably:

"port notice"
"may require"
Stanier, didn't you already check with them about their local procedures and if they reference any standards?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.