Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Pete Longworth
Do the Pressure Equipment Regulations 99 apply to the following system, particularly 2.10 & 2.11 of the essential safety requirements.
The system is a fire suppression system that consists of 4 x 9litre water cylinders (tested at 50 bar), each cylinder is pressurised at 12 bar by a nitrogen cylinder capacity 10 litres @ 200bar. There is a regulator on the N2 cylinder which is protected by a PR valve designed to operate at 35 bar. In the event of a fire the system generates a water mist through a series of nozzles.
Any opinions gratefully accepted with reasons if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ashley Wood
Pete, In my opinion 'yes' is the answer especially the N2 cylinder. I have had a lot of experience with water mist systems and am intrigued as to who's system this is?
Is the system being maintained?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Longworth
Thanks for that Ashley. I'm sorry I can't reveal who's system it is. My next question is, do you think there ought to be a down stream PR valve in the event of the regulator failing?
The system is maintained by our on-site engineers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ashley Wood
Pete, without knowing where the system is installed, what it is protecting and who's it is I can only say 'No'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Draper
On the face of it PER probably doesn't apply and there is probably more than one reason why.
The system comprises transportable pressure equipment which is covered by different regulations (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regs 2004). Providing the cylinders are appropriately manufactured, tested and marked in accordance with those regs, your interest in them stops.
The sprinkler arrangement is not designed to hold pressure. It is by virtue of its purpose, open to the atmosphere at several locations and would almost certainly as a system fall under the category of SEP.
The pressure relief valve as a safety device should be individually CE marked under PER.
There is also the question of who installed the system. If the system was installed by the user and under the control of the user, then PER wouldn't apply anyway as this circumstance is exempted from PER.
Nevertheless, whether it is CE marked or not, the user must comply with the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000.
Hope that little lot helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ashley Wood
This does not sound like a mobile system to me. Am I correct in assuming it is a fixed system in the sense that it is fixed to or next to an item of equipment and from the cylinders a range of pipe is run and fixed to the equipment it is protecting and terminated in discharge nozzles?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Longworth
Sorry for the late response.
The system is not mobile. It is a fixed installation as you described. It has been built ostensibly to comply with NFPA 750 which is an American standard. On the face of it, the system completely relies on the regulator fitted to the N2 cylinder to prevent overpressure in the water cylinders. There is a PR valve on the regulator, but the manufacturer of the valve states that it is not designed for the job and will not cope with an overpressure of 200bar which is what would happen if the regulator failed. My question is, is this reliance on the regulator reasonable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ashley Wood
As you say NFPA 750 is a US standard but only for installation and the materials used. regarding the pressure regulator, what pressure does it reduce the 200 bar to? I have seen several of these types of systems and the regulator does seem to be the only thing holding back the 200 bar. I do not know why these systems are designed in this way, why not use water cylinders that are able to take the 200 bar pressure? They do exist as companies such as fogtec, marioff, LPG, semco all have them on their water mist systems! I think you are stuck with what you have my friend as I know of no manufacturer who makes a regulator with a burst disc or bypass valve if the regulator fails. You could of course change the system to one mentioned?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Longworth
Thanks Ashley
I think ultimately that is what we will have to do and look at who bears the cost afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.