Thank you very much for this information, and I would like to say Thank you to every one who contributed to the resolution of this problem I was facing, I have shared this information and we are NOW doing things the correct way pertaining to the refueling process. Again Thanks to all. Dee

I thank you also... this should be valuable information.

dee c:

NFPA 505: Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use, Conversions, Maintenance, and Operations, 2011 Edition, Rule 9.1.2.10 requires that exchangeable/removable lpg cylinders be removed from powered industrial trucks prior to refueling.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) now allows read only access to its codes and standards:

Google: NFPA 505: Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks...

Those numbers are not surprising. As just a mere sales/marketing type person, I used to carry a handful of gaskets in my 'ditty bag" for the truck half tank coupler. About 4-5 times a year, when I was able to work my way into the "back rooms", I would run across a leaky coupler gasket & fix it for the customer no matter the brand. About 1/2 the time the account would remember this & we would pick up plus business - service, parts, rental, truck sales, etc. from new accounts.
And yes, I was coached in proper procedures by a "factory trained" service professional. That plus my growing up on a Michigan farm learning to fix machinery in the middle of a field in pouring rain , knee deep in mud & a formal education in auto engineering at WMU allowed me to muddle my way through this procedure.

I almost feel as if I should first declare that NONE of those were my fault. no matter how many of them I touched.
;-)
it seems to me that about 2/3 of the area of a forklift would be covered as "in the vehicle's engine area running gear or wheel area".

Speaking of fire, the following information might be of interest:

INDUSTRIAL LOADER AND FORKLIFT FIRES
(NFPA) Marty Ahrens, January 2009


"NFPA estimates that in 2003-2006, U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated total of 1,340 structure and vehicle fires per year in which industrial loaders or forklifts were directly involved in ignition. These fires caused an estimated average of 22 civilian injuries, and $36 million in direct property damage per year. Ninety-one percent of the fires were coded as vehicle fires. These vehicle fires occurred in a wide variety of properties. Almost two-thirds of these fires originated in the vehicle's engine area running gear or wheel area. These estimates are based on data from Version 5.0 of the U.S. Fire Administration's (USFA's) National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA's) annual fire department experience survey."

Google: nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/ForkliftExecSum.pdf

as much as I detest "me too"... I find no disagreement. I just think far to few people consider minimizing the flow of fuel when they remove or install tanks. I also find very few folks know to or consider turning off the tank at the end of a work day.

edward t:

Changing removable lpg tanks should propose little fire risk provided there is no defective equipment involved and one of the OSHA required methods is used. I perceive the greater fire risk to be during the cylinder recharge operation. I think most of the bulk tank portable cylinder filling devices are equipped with manual controls. Inattention, poor reflexes, or defective equipment could spell disaster. Liquid propane has an expansion ratio of 270 volumes of gas for 1 volume of liquid exposed to air.

"OSHA 1910.110, Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases

OSHA, 1910.110(e)(5)(iv)(e)

When removable fuel containers are used, means shall be provided in the fuel system to minimize the escape of fuel when the containers are exchanged. This may be accomplished by either of the following methods:

OSHA, 1910.110(e)(5)(iv)(e)(1)

Using an approved automatic quick-closing coupling (a type closing in both directions when uncoupled) in the fuel line, or

OSHA, 1910.110(e)(5)(iv)(e)(2)

Closing the valve at the fuel container and allowing the engine to run until the fuel in the line is consumed."

johnr j:

I remember those Ford days. I was involved in the transition for two facilities. It was a nightmare as every agency involved had different interpretations of which regulations applied and what those regulations required. Personnel within the various agencies involved couldn't even agree with each other.

I'm still surprised that the project got off the ground. You mentioned the magic word that I had forgotten about - ASME. Talk about regulatory nightmares.

Thanks for bringing back ancient history.

I find your comment on the seismic requirements interesting. It will be quite a challenge to tackle that kind of project. I can see the commissioner's concern, however. It is one propane hazard that I have never thought about

joseph h
1. At one time Ford Motor Company (a very safety oriented company) required an ASME LPG tank (fixed mounted) in their ZA-1, 300A lift truck specifications for LPG powered equipment and later revised the specification to the ICC (removable) tank type.

2. My understanding on LPG regulations is that specific states, counties or cities can impose specific regulations that are more stringent than national requirements, i.e. OSHA, NFPA, etc., as long as the local requirements do not conflict with the national or fed standards. It is always advisable for users to check with their local code enforcement agency.

Away from LPG, but an example of local codes, in Gwinnett County Georgia, local codes require all storage racks to be seismic compliant i.e. meet the same standards as required in California. Rumor has it, the county safety commissioner came from the Shaky Side.

I am not sure of using the word "correct" nor do I think I would be very concerned about a fork truck if I had any chance of a propane fueled fire.
I think I might use the phrase "best practice" to refill a tank -off- the vehicle so as to be that much more sure of not having a hot exhaust or any other possible spark any where in the vicinity of the refueling operation, but I would spend far more effort in getting the operator or whomever is changing the tank, in getting them to run the fuel out of the hoses on the truck after shutting off the tank's valve, so as to not having any fuel escape, than in worrying about where the truck is properly parked.
Which do you consider a greater fire hazard, the fuel escaping when the hose is disconnected to remove the tank, or the fuel escaping when you bleed the pressure and remove from the fill hose?
my answer is that if the fuel might be ignited, it burns at the same temp, and doesn't matter to the fuel or the spark which hose it came from last.
While I appreciate your effort, Joseph, I seriously will be very surprised if you are able to find anything [I have not] in the NFPA regs.
You may also be able to check the NFPA regs by checking with your local municipal fire department's "inspectors" or "fire marshals" office.

edward t:

I agree that the correct method of filling removable lpg cylinders is when they are off of the forklift. This reduces possible damage to the forklift should a fire occur during refueling. I also think that most bulk filling stations in use are designed for only filling cylinders off of the forklift and are not equipped with the safety devices required of filling stations intended for fixed forklift lpg tanks designed to be filled on the forklift.

I am going to try to sneak into ANSI/NFPA 58 this weekend through the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) site.

yes, you would have to remove the tank to weigh it, as well as to inspect it. That is also my idea of the -correct- method, shutting off the gas, running the lines dry, checking to be sure the line is dry before disconnection from the truck, wearing proper face, arm and hand protection, removing the tank, filling it to weight on the scale and checking the inspection information each time,
However there are many companies around that use on the vehicle filling, and/or use "80% from the spit valve flow is full" and to begin to insist that they are _wrong_ is also about equally "incorrect". [ymmv]

edward t:

I cannot answer the specific questions as I do not have copies of ANSI/NFPA 505 or ANSI/NFPA 58. ANSI/NFPA does not have free access to their materials like ITSDF does. The best I can do at this time is to provide a possible source for these materials.

I do not know the specific reason why Siegal Gas and Oil Corp. indicates that the tanks should be removed prior to filling. I figure, however, that LPG is there business, they know the regulations, they know the safety implications and I am not about to challenge them.

In your statement of 80% full and using a scale, wouldn't one have to remove the tank to weigh it?

I think we might have a difficult argument on our hands if we attempt to get the local fire marshal (who is the enforcing agency for NFPA requirements) to fine anyone for filling on the vehicle, based upon Seigal gas company's how to fill a propane cylinder from a dispenser tank. doncha think?
I notice that while Joseph offers up the Government regulations, but doesn't specify where in those regulations the OP questions get answered.

I would also note that, in truth, you should NOT use the "spit valve" to offer up a guess or to decide you are "80% full" but rather use a scale and fill to weight and actually know when it is 80% full.

Both of those are items that are generally considered fact, (80% full when spitting runs thick/ fill only off vehicle) but just are not backed up by engineering.
Rather than suggest they remove the tank, how about insuring the park brake is set and works correctly and engine turned off, since the only real advantage would be to insure the tank remains stationary while filling.
BTW, I would be very pleased should someone be able to point out the particular regulations that specify the tank must be removed from the vehicle, from NFPA, ITSDF, or OSHA.