The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutI - 18 Ray Energy - Aquifer Protection Permit0 8 7 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 03/22/2022 X 178-46 XIV 178-76 XIII 178-68 Ray Energy Corp River Run Properties, LLC 12/08/2021 (contract to purchase) Project has frontage along US Route 11. 2794 Seventh Ave Troy, NY 12180 (518) 874-4510 McGraw Central School District CortlandvilleYes Yes Cortlandville Yes Cortlandville 36000 kWh/year Electricity Yes Yes winter: 60 (out & in) summer: 30 (out & in) Private FIRE SAFETY ANALYSIS CORTLANDVILLE PROPANE TERMINAL LOCATION ADDRESS: 3893 US Route 11 Cortlandville, NY 13045 LAST UPDATED: 3/20/2022 Introduction Origin and Development of the Fire Safety Analysis Manual Acknowledgments About the Authors Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 LP-Gas Storage Container Safety Features Part 1 Facility Information Location Data for LP-Gas Facility LP Gas Storage Container Safety Features of Proposed Installation Part 2 Analyisis of Product Control Measures in Containers and Transfer Piping Facility Storage Capacity Facility Area Details Part 3 Analysis of Product Control Measures in Containers and Transfer Piping Schematic Representation of the NFPA Requirements for Product Control Liquid Inlet Appurtenances Liquid Outlet Appurtenances Part 4 Analysis of Product Control Measures in Containers and Transfer Piping Liquid transfer lines Vapor transfer lines Part 5 Analysis of Local Conditions of Hazard Ignition Source Control Assessment Evaluation of Physical Protection and Other Measures Separation Distances Part 6 Exposure To and From Other Properties, Popluation Density Distance to Various Types of Propane Hazards Under Different Release Models Exposure to LP-Gas Facility from External Hazards Part 7 Evaluation of Fire Services and Water Supply Requirements Data on the Responding Fire Department Response Time Data Water Flow Rate and Total Water Volume Required to Cool Container Exposed to a Fire Evaluation of Water Availability in or near the LP-Gas Facility Part 8 Evaluation Summary For a Proposed New LP-Gas Facility Analysis Summary on Product Control and Local Conditions of Hazard Analysis Summary on Exposure from and to the LP Gas Facility Analysis Summary on Fire Department Evaluations Technical References / Note: per Fire Safety Analysis Manual for LP-Gas Storage Facilities Table of Contents Fire Safety Analysis The content of this document is based on the 2014 edition of the Fire Safety Analysis for LP-Gas Storage Facilities. As an updated Manual has not been published for the 2017 edition of NFPA 58, which is adopted in New York, the references to NFPA 58 paragraphs have been updated. All codes referenced in this document refer to the 2017 edition of NFPA 58. Appendix B Result of Hazard Distance Calculations For Different LPG Release Scenarios Appendix A Blank forms used in Analysis (not included) CONFIDENTIAL Introduction This manual has been organized to address the requirements outlined in NFPA 58 2017 Ed. § 6.29 and Appendix A § A6 The manual is constructed following the guidelines provided by the Propane Education & Research Council, The National Propane Gas Association and the National Fire Protection Association. Hiltz Propane Systems, Inc. has obtained and compiled this Information to assist clients in complying with NFPA 58 requirements. The content of this document is based on the 2014 edition of the Fire Safety Analysis for LP-Gas Storage Facilities. As an updated Manual has not been published for the 2017 edition of NFPA 58, which is adopted in New York, the references to NFPA 58 paragraphs have been updated to reflect 2017 NFPA 58 Code. This is not Intended to be an exhaustive effort covering all aspects. Hiltz Propane Systems disclaims any and all liability for losses or damages arising from, or caused in whole or in part upon, use of this manual or the material or other Information contained in this manual. Introduction Fire Safety Analysis Manual for LP-Gas Storage Facilities Based on the 2017 Edition of NFPA 58 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code The official position of the NFPA on all aspects regarding propane storage facility safety is in NFPA 58, the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code. This manual is not intended to replace NFPA 58. The Propane Education & Research Council (PERC) is a non-profit 501(c)6 trade organization authorized by the Propane Education and Research Act of 1996 (PERA), Public Law 104-284. PERC was created “to enhance consumer and employee safety and training, to provide for research and development of clean and efficient propane utilization equipment, and to inform and educate the public about safety and other issues associated with the use of propane.” PERC is governed by a twenty-one member Board of Directors appointed by the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) and the Gas Processors Association (GPA). PERC program beneficiaries include propane retail marketers, producers, transporters’ and agricultural cooperatives, as well as representatives of allied service and supply industries (industry members). The recommendations, standards, or recommended practices, as reflected in this document, were developed by independent consultants retained by PERC. While PERC administers the process of obtaining the information, it does not independently test or verify the accuracy of the information or methods used to collect the data that supports the conclusions or recommendations reflected in this document. PERC, NPGA, GPA and the industry members disclaim any liability for any personal injury, property damage, business losses or other damages of any nature whatsoever, whether special, indirect, consequential or compensatory, directly or indirectly resulting from the publication, use, or reliance on this document, or any information, apparatus, method, process, or similar item disclosed in this document. This disclaimer of liability shall apply even if such loss or damage results, in whole or in part, from any acts or omissions of or by any negligence on the part of PERC, NPGA, GPA or industry members or any persons who contributed to the development of the information contained in this document. PERC, NPGA, GPA and industry members make no warranty or guaranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information published in this document. The procedures and information in this document are intended to implement the standards set forth in the documents referenced with capabilities of the personnel and equipment available. It does not create new standards or criteria for compliance. The order of steps in any procedure may or may not be of importance. This material is not sold nor is it a product of any consulting or engineering activity. Users of this document should consult the law of their individual jurisdictions for codes, standards and legal requirements applicable to them. This document is not intended nor should it be construed to (1) set forth policies or procedures which are the general custom or practice in the propane industry; (2) to establish the legal standards of care owed by propane distributors to their customers; or (3) to prevent the user from using different methods to implement applicable codes, standards or legal requirements. By disseminating or publishing this document, PERC is not undertaking to render any professional or other service to or on behalf of any person or entity. PERC, NPGA, GPA and the industry members are not undertaking to perform any duty owed by any person or entity to any third party. Anyone reading or using this document should rely on his or her own judgment or, as appropriate, should seek the advice of a competent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any and all circumstances. Introduction Origin and Development of the Fire Safety Analysis Manual The requirement for a Fire Safety Analysis (FSA) was introduced in the 1976 edition of NFPA 58, along with the requirement for emergency shutoff valves at locations where hoses and swivel type piping were used (for connection to cargo tank vehicles and rail cars). A Fire Safety Analysis was required for new propane storage plants with capacities of more than 4,000 gallons located in “heavily populated or congested areas”. This requirement was basically unchanged until the 2001 edition of NFPA 58, where the FSA was required for all propane storage plants with capacities of more than 4,000 gallons, with a three year period for existing facilities to be brought into compliance. As the majority of plants requiring a FSA did not have one in 2001, the need for guidance on how to conduct the FSA became apparent. Prior to 2001, the FSA was usually conducted by an independent consultant with knowledge of propane and fire safety. The concept of a consistent methodology was identified by a propane marketer in New England, Jim Hurley of Eastern Propane. The first two editions of the Manual were dedicated to Jim in recognition of his vision. The recommendation resulted in NFPA working with NPGA to submit a proposal to PERC to develop a FSA manual to assist marketers in complying with the FSA requirement. When the project was approved, NPGA established an advisory committee and worked with NFPA to develop the manual. Since the 2001 edition of the manual, it has been updated thrice to retain correct numbers of the paragraphs referenced in NFPA 58, as they are sometimes revised and renumbered. No technically substantive changes have been made to the manual since the first edition was published. The models used in the Fire Safety Analysis (FSA) Manual to determine the distances to hazards (presented in Table B-1 of the FSA Manual) are based on published models in the literature. These models have been published in government reports, journal articles1,2 , EPA-suggested procedures3 and engineering monographs and books. The models used are considered conservative and have been simplified for the purposes of the FSA Manual. Introduction Acknowledgments This fifth edition of the Fire Safety Analysis (FSA) Manual, based on the 2014 edition of NFPA 58, is a continuation of the effort to fulfill a need for an easily used and simple aid for the members of propane industry to fulfill their obligations under NFPA 58 (2001, 2004, 2008, 2011 and 2014 editions) which require developing a written FSA. The project was funded by the Propane Education & Research Council through the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA). The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) was the principal contractor for the first edition of the manual. Technology & Management Systems, Inc. (TMS) developed the technical analyses and several chapters of the first edition of the manual, as a subcontractor to NFPA. Mr. Theodore C. Lemoff, Principal Gases Engineer, was the principal investigator at NFPA. Dr. Phani K. Raj was the principal investigator and analyst at TMS. Mr. Bruce Swiecicki, P.E., Senior Technical Advisor at NPGA, served as a staff technical reviewer. In preparation for the first edition, NPGA assembled an Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from the propane industry, a Fire Department of a major city in the US and a Fire Protection Engineer. The Committee provided technical inputs and guidance to the project team on industry safety practices, types of information that an authority having jurisdiction and emergency responders would want to see in an FSA, an insight into the levels of understanding of various issues related to FSA in the industry, etc. The Advisory Committee set not only the direction of the project but made policy decisions related to the scope of the FSA manual. Except for the contractors, every member of the Advisory Committee had a vote and many decisions were made on the basis of a Committee vote. The Advisory Committee consisted of the following (voting) members. 1 Michael Merrill (Chairman) Suburban Propane LP Whippany, NJ 2 Mr. Greg Benton Georgia Gas Distributors Atlanta, GA 3 Mr. Billy Cox O'Nealgas Inc. Choudrant, LA 4 Mr. James Howe Howe Engineers, Inc. West Falmouth, MA 5 Mr. Jerry Lucas Heritage Propane Partners, LP Sallisaw, OK 6 Mr. Rob Scott Scott & Associates Kingsburg, CA 7 Mr. Cliff Slisz Ferrellgas Liberty, MO 8 Mr. Scott Stookey City of Phoenix Fire Department Phoenix, AZ 9 Mr. Ron Stover Mutual Liquid Gas & Equipment Gardena, CA 10 Mr. Robert Wallace Dowdle Butane Gas Co Inc Maryville, TN 11 Mr. Brent Wolcott Ag Valley Coop Edison, NE Mr. Theodore Lemoff and Dr. Phani Raj participated in the deliberations of the meetings of the Advisory Committee as non-voting members. Introduction About the Authors Phani K. Raj, Ph.D. Dr. Raj is the President of Technology & Management Systems, Inc. (TMS). He holds S.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Mechanical Engineering as well as an MBA degree. He has over 30 years professional experience in conducting safety research and assessing risks in the storage, transportation, handling and utilization of hazardous materials, including energy fluids. His research has included the development of mathematical models to describe the accidental release behavior of chemicals and flammable materials. In addition, he has developed easy to follow safety guideline documents and hazard assessment manuals for a number of clients including the Federal Agencies and industrial clients. Dr. Raj developed a number of models for the “Chemical Hazard Response Information System” (CHRIS), which the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Response Center use for assisting in case of hazardous material emergencies. He is the author of CHRIS Manual III “Hazard Assessment Handbook.” Since 1996 he has been a member of the NFPA’s Technical Committee on Liquefied Petroleum Gases which writes NFPA 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code . He was a member of the Committee Transportation of Hazardous Materials (of the National Research Council), and emeritus member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Hazardous Materials. He has held the post of visiting lecturer at MIT and taught, in the Chemical Engineering Department, a graduate level course. He is the principal author of over 100 technical reports and over 40 technical papers. Theodore C. Lemoff, PE Mr. Lemoff is retired from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). While at NFPA, he served as the Principal Gases Engineer. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Chemical Engineering and is a registered professional engineer in Massachusetts. He has over 40 years experience in the fire safety and the chemical industry, including 25 years at NFPA working in the flammable gases area. He served as the staff liaison and secretary to the NFPA Technical Committee on Liquefied Petroleum Gases, responsible for NFPA 58, and for other NFPA codes and standards on flammable gases. Mr. Lemoff is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the Society of Gas Engineers, and the American Society of Plumbing Engineers. Introduction Chapter 1 1 All reference, henceforth, to the “code” in this document should be construed as referring to NFPA 58, 2017 edition. 1.1 Background The Fire Safety Analysis (FSA) is a self-conducted audit of the safety features of a propane installation and an assessment of the means to minimize the potential for inadvertent propane releases from storage containers and during transfer operations. The assessment also includes an evaluation of the capabilities of local emergency response agencies as well as an analysis of potentially hazardous exposures from the installation to the neighborhood and from the surroundings to the LP-Gas facility. Since 1976, NFPA 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (hereinafter referred to as the “code” or “NFPA 58”) has required that a facility operator or owner conduct a FSA for propane facilities having ASME containers of aggregate storage greater than 4,000 gallons water capacity. The FSA requirement was changed in the 2001 edition to require a written FSA. The requirements for fire protection are indicated in the 2017 edition of NFPA 58 in §6.29, which addresses fire protection requirements for industrial plants, bulk plants and dispensing stations. Specifically §6.29.2 (“Planning”) and §6.27.3(“Protection of ASME Containers”) require, in part, the following: 6.29.2.1 The planning for the response to incidents including the inadvertent release of LP-Gas, fire, or security breach shall be coordinated with local emergency response agencies. 6.29.2.2 Planning shall include consideration of the safety of emergency personnel, workers, and the public. 6.29.3.1 Fire protection shall be provided for installations with an aggregate water capacity of more than 4000 gal (15.2 m3) and for ASME containers on roofs. 6.29.3.2 The modes of fire protection shall be specified in a written fire safety analysis for new installations, for existing installations that have an aggregate water capacity of more than 4000 gallons (15.2 m3)and for ASME containers on roofs. Existing installations shall comply with this requirement within 2 years of the effective date of this code. 6.29.3.3 The fire safety analysis shall be submitted by the owner, operator, or their designee to the authority having jurisdiction and local emergency responders. 6.29.3.4 The fire safety analysis shall be updated when the storage capacity or transfer system is modified. The FSA and required assessment of the installation provides several important benefits: 1) A structured assessment by which each facility can be evaluated for conformity of installed equipment with code requirements. 2) A means to evaluate the capability of systems and equipment installed to control and contain potential LP-Gas releases during day-to-day operations. 3) An approach to evaluate the informational needs of the facility, based on factors such as the type and frequency of transfer operations, size of the storage containers, location of the facility with respect to other buildings and the existing procedures and systems in place. 4) A means to describe product control and fire protection features which exceed the comprehensive requirements of NPFA 581. 5) A tool for facilitating a cooperative and effective dialogue with local emergency response agencies and authorities having jurisdiction. Introduction Chapter 1 1.2 Scope of the Manual The manual addresses a number of subjects, including: (1) A review of the product control measures required in the NFPA 58, “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code” (2) Local conditions of hazards within the facility site (3) Exposures to and from other properties (4) Effectiveness of local fire departments (5) Effective control of leakage, fire and exposure (6) Illustrative examples using four different sizes of typical LP-Gas facilities This FSA manual is intended for use by propane plant owners or operators, consultants, authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) and emergency response personnel. The manual addresses the process by which a FSA can be conducted for a LP-Gas facility containing one or more stationary ASME containers. The FSA manual is designed to provide a guide for identifying the requirements in NFPA 58 and determining compliance with them. Section 6.29.3.5 of NFPA 58 provides that: The fire safety analysis shall be an evaluation of the total product control system, such as the emergency shutoff and internal valves equipped for remote closure and automatic shutoff using thermal (fire) actuation, pull away protection where installed, and the optional requirements of Section 6.30. The philosophy of NFPA 58 is to minimize fires by minimizing the accidental release of propane if an incident should occur. Or put in simple terms, “no fuel, and no fire.” The manual does not address the following: 1. Marine terminals, refrigerated LP-Gas storage and the transportation of LP-gas by either rail tank cars or by cargo tank trucks. Marine terminals are governed by the OSHA Process Safety Management regulations and the US EPA Risk Management Plan regulations; refrigerated storage of LP-gas is a high-volume operation requiring special considerations; and, the transportation of LP-gas is addressed by Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Transportation.i 2. Storage of LP-Gas in salt domes and caverns. 3. Installations of ASME LP-gas containers on roofs of buildings. This type of installation, for which a fire safety analysis is required, is excluded from the scope of this manual primarily because of the rarity of such installations in the United States. 4. Cylinder filling operations at a dispensing facility, unless the storage threshold for LP- Gas has been exceeded, requiring an FSA to be prepared. 5. The use of facility employees performing as a “fire brigade.” The above facilities may be required to comply with other safety analysis requirements. Introduction Chapter 1 1.3 Need for a FSA Manual Neither NFPA 58 nor the “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code Handbook”ii provide detailed guidance on how to prepare or develop a written FSA. Since each industrial plant, bulk plant, or dispensing stationpresents unique physical and operational characteristics, the fire safety analysis is a tool used to assess the level of fire safety performance that a specific industrial plant, bulk plant or dispensing station can be expected to provide. This FSA will also provide essential information on the facility and its operation to the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and local emergency response agency. An informal survey was taken of AHJ’s on the fire safety analyses used for existing and new plants in their jurisdictions (conducted by the author) at the time the first edition of this manual was being prepared. It indicated that there was no uniformity either in content, the details of information, or final assessment of the facility in the FSAs submitted. They ranged from a single page submission for a medium size bulk plant to very detailed assessment including risk assessment and management plan for a 30,000 gallon bulk storage facility. Without a guidance manual, potential confusion would almost certainly occur as each AHJ would be required to establish an individual set of criteria that would meet the FSA in their area. Thus, the need in the LP-Gas industry for assistance with the following tasks was clearly established. 1) Providing a FSA template that allows for consideration of different size installations 2) Establishing a uniform approach and defining common elements 3) Developing simplified checklists and an example-based methodology for completing the analysis 4) Utilizing technically-based guidance and support The intent of this FSA manual is to provide an easy-to-use procedure for LP-gas facility owners or operators who are most familiar with the equipment technology and system operations and therefore qualified to complete the document. Knowledge of fire science and engineering principles is not required for this document to be useable by an owner, operator or an AHJ, because those principles have already been factored into the assessment criteria contained within the FSA. By utilizing the expertise of industry, engineering and fire service representatives in the development of the material to follow, this manual provides a comprehensive, uniform, objective approach that was designed to provide for the uniform and objective application of FSA requirements by the AHJs. Further, the joint input of the Propane Education & Research Council (PERC), National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) provides additional assurance of the manual’s depth, credibility and broad- based consensus. This FSA manual has been developed based on the requirements of NFPA 58, 2017 edition. Using this manual to perform a FSA at a facility constructed to meet the requirements of prior editions of NFPA 58 or other state-specific codes may produce conflicts between actual facility construction and the checklists in this manual. The code or standard in effect at the time of construction of the facility should be used as the source of requirements to perform the FSA. Checklist items contained within this manual can be revised to indicate the appropriate code items required at the time of facility construction. Introduction Chapter 1 1.4 LP-Gas Safety Record and Risks The LP-Gas industry has a long history of safe operations. With the requirement in the 1976 edition of NFPA 58 to retrofit LP-Gas plants with emergency shutoff valves (ESVs) in transfer lines, the safety of LP-Gas facilities was further improved. The FSA provided in this manual, in addition to other safety programs currently enacted at any workplace, is intended to reduce or eliminate the risk of fatality or injury to both the plant employees and the public. In an effort to identify the level of risk a propane installation poses to the general public, as well as employees and emergency responders, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) instituted a studyiii in 1981. Accident data from a variety of sources was analyzed, including: the US Department of Transportation hazardous material incident report database, reports of the National Transportation Safety Board, National Fire Protection Association, technical journals and other sources. Data analyzed for the period 1971 through 1979 addressed LP-Gas transportation and product releases from stationary storage facilities. The special focus of the study was the fatalities suffered by employees and the general public. The study concluded that a fatality to the general public as a direct result of an LPG transportation or storage incident involving the loss of product is very small and the risk (expressed in expected number of fatalities per year) is smaller than that from natural phenomena (lightning, tornadoes, objects falling from the sky, etc). An analysis conducted by the National Fire Protection Associationiv of LP-Gas fire damage and casualty data during the period between 1980 and 1999 also indicates that the LP-Gas storage facility operations in the US are very safe. The number of reported fires at LP-Gas bulk storage facilities remains small and has fallen since 1980, but substantial variation exists from year to year. During the five-year period from 1994 through 1998, an estimated 49 fires, on average, were reported per year at LP-Gas bulk storage facilities. These fires caused an annual average of one civilian death, five civilian injuries and $754,000 in direct property damage. In 1999, an estimated 58 reported fires on these properties caused four civilian injuries and $722,000 in direct property damage. The 58 fires reported in 1999 accounted for .003% of all fires reported that year. Introduction Chapter 1 1.5 Organization of the FSA Manual The manual has been organized to address the requirements outlined in the 2017 edition of NFPA 58, Sections 6.29 and 6.30. Chapter 2 discusses the requirements of the 2017 edition of NFPA 58 in regard to product control requirements, and their evolution. The philosophy and the advantages of product control systems are discussed. Also included are the various appurtenances used in a typical LP-Gas facility. More detailed information on the types of valves, their functions and example photographs of various appurtenances are provided in Appendix B. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the FSA process including its principal elements. The input of data into the FSA procedure begins with Chapter 4. In Chapter 4, basic information about the LP-Gas facility is input into appropriate tables and a decision is made (based on the data provided) as to the extent of the analysis that should be completed. The assessment of conformity with code requirements of the product control requirements for containers and in transfer piping is performed in Chapter 5. To aid this assessment a series of sketches of possible configurations of container appurtenances (satisfying 2017 code requirements) are provided. Note that several section references have been changed from the published edition of the 2014 edition due to the acceptance of Tentative Interim Amendment 14-3, which is reprinted with permission in Appendix C of the original document found at . When necessary, the year when specific equipment was required by the code is also indicated on the sketches to facilitate application of the Manual to facilities constructed to the requirements in previous editions of NFPA 58. The analysis of the local conditions of hazard is presented in Chapter 6, followed by the assessment in Chapter 7 of the hazard exposure to off-site properties and persons. Also, the potential exposure to LP-Gas installations from off-site activities is covered in Chapter 7. The evaluation of the capabilities of the local emergency responder (usually the fire department) and the availability of water to fight in-plant fires and exposures are presented in Chapter 8. Summary of evaluations and actions that may need to be initiated for proposed LP-Gas facilities are presented in Chapter 9. The use of this manual in preparing a written FSA for a LP-Gas facility is demonstrated with examples of four different generic cases. Several different sizes of facilities are considered. i U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation ii Liquefied Petroleum Gas Handbook, Beach, 2014, NFPA, Quincy MA and 2017 NFPA iii LPG Land Transportation and Storage Safety, Department of Energy report No. DOE/EV/06020-TS 9/18/81" iv Fires at LP-Gas Bulk Storage Plants Statistical Analysis, NFPA, 2003, Quincy, MA Introduction Chapter 2 LP-Gas Storage Container Safety Features The fundamental premise on which the requirements for LP-Gas facility safety specified in several recent editions of NFPA 58 is based is the following: If product release can be either controlled or eliminated, safety is effectively addressed. A product release creates the potential for the occurrence of a fire. Therefore, the focus of both NFPA 58 and the Fire Safety Analysis Manual is on the need to design systems (incorporating product controls) to ensure, to the extent possible with current technology and procedures, the elimination of the accidental release of LP-gas from storage or during transfer operations. 2.1 A Historical Perspective In the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s there were a number of fires and BLEVEs (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosions) of propane and other liquefied petroleum gases resulting from derailments of railcars carrying propane and other flammable liquefied gases. These incidents involved fire fighter fatalities and highlighted the need for safety improvements. As a result, the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) implemented new regulations for the tank cars used to transport propane and other liquefied flammable gases, and made them mandatory and retroactive in 1980. These improvements included: -Head shields to reinforce the pressure vessel on the railcar -“Shelf” couplers to reduce the potential for railcars to be uncoupled during a derailment -Thermal protection to reduce the potential for the tank to experience a rise in temperature due to flame impingement Since these improvements in rail car safety were made in the 1980’s, there have been no fire fighter fatalities from any railroad tank car BLEVEs and the number of these incidents has been greatly reduced, to the authors’ knowledge. In 1973, product control requirements to prevent the uncontrolled release of LP-gas from storage containers consisted primarily of manually operated valves, backflow check valves and excess-flow check valves. On July 3, 1973 a propane incident occurred in Kingman, Arizona involving a propane fire at a propane tank car unloading area in a propane bulk storage plant. Though the plant’s equipment conformed to the requirements of NFPA 58 and other safety standards for flammable materials at that time, the incident resulted in the death of several fire fighters and one plant employee. Introduction Chapter 2 A direct result of this incident (and others that occurred at approximately the same time) was the addition of a new fire protection requirement in the 1976 edition of NFPA 58. The requirement stated that planning “for the effective measures for control of inadvertent LP- Gas release or fire” shall be done and coordinated with local emergency responders. In addition, the primary consideration of a fire safety analysis at that time was the use of water as a suppressing agent to control fires. The requirements today are very similar to those original requirements except in two areas. -As of the 2001 edition, fire safety analyses are required to be written; -The primary consideration in performing such an analysis has changed from the emphasis of using water for fire control to the emphasis of avoiding product release altogether using technology and training. This modern approach takes advantage of the inherent safety present in a controlled environment such as a bulk plant, as well as the safety features of the most current product control hardware. In early editions of NFPA 58, the primary consideration of water as the means to control a fire was based on the fact that at that time, there were few reliable ways to stop the flow of LP-gas after failures in the system and the need to apply water quickly to storage containers being impinged by flames was important. Another significant change in the 1976 edition of NFPA 58 was the requirement for including an emergency shutoff valve (ESV) in the transfer lines used between stationary storage containers of over 4,000 gallons capacity and cargo tank vehicles. This revision was intended to prevent product release from storage containers in the event of a vehicle pulling away with its hoses still connected. All existing plants were required to comply with this requirement by the end of 1980. Since this retrofit program was completed, there has not been, to the knowledge of the authors, a pull- away accident involving an ESV installation that resulted in serious consequences. The 1980’s enjoyed a reduced number of propane incidents in the U. S., and the next major product control enhancement was the revision to introduce an optional requirement for internal tank valves in containers over 2,000 gallons in the 1992 edition of NFPA 58. These tank valve requirements included: Vapor and Liquid Withdrawal Openings in Tanks 1. Positive shutoff valve in line with excess flow valve installed in the tank, or 2. Internal valve with integral excess flow shutoff capability Vapor and Liquid Inlet Openings in Tanks 1. Positive shutoff valve in combination with either an excess flow valve or backflow check valve installed in the tank, or 2. Internal valve with integral excess flow valve, or 3. Internal valve with remote means of closure Introduction Chapter 2 These revisions were made to enhance the operational features of product control hardware. Internal valves are capable of being closed from a remote location (using a cable, pneumatic, or hydraulic device) and by thermal activation, which is accomplished using an element that melts when it is subjected to fairly moderate temperatures (in the 200ºF - 250º F range). The 2001 edition of NFPA 58 was further revised to require internal valves for liquid connections to containers over 4,000 gallons, with remote and thermal shutoff activation. This change was the result of the Committee desiring improved safety performance with this advanced hardware, due to the following incidents: -Sanford, NC. A hose separation resulted in the loss of the contents of a transport vehicle (9700 gallons water capacity). The contents within the storage containers were also lost because of a failed check valve. -Albert City, Iowa. An exposed liquid pipe installed in violation of the code between an 18,000 gallon water capacity storage container and a vaporizer was broken when a recreational vehicle accidentally drove over it. The leaking gas found a source of ignition and impinged on the container, resulting in a BLEVE. -Truth or Consequences, NM. A small, parked truck rolled into a propane bulk storage plant, breaking plant piping. The resulting fire caused the failure of several cylinders. These improvements in product control are considered critically important, and in addition to requiring them for all new installations after 2001, the requirements were made retroactive to all existing installations, allowing 10 years for the conversion. All existing containers over 4,000 gallons water capacity will be retrofit with an internal valve or similar protection on all liquid connections. Alternatively, the use of an emergency shutoff valve (ESV) as close to the container as practical is also allowed, in recognition that some containers cannot accommodate an internal valve without extensive modification. The ESV has the same remote and thermal activation closing features as an internal valve. 2.2 Current LP-Gas Storage Container Safety Features As of the 2001 edition, NFPA 58 requirements for product release control include the provision for a number of different types of valves or appurtenances in the product storage containers, transfer piping network and at liquid transfer facility locations. Generally, code requirements for product control appurtenances on containers used in industrial plants and bulk plants, as well as dispensing stations, are more stringent than for residential and commercial use containers. In the 2014 edition of NFPA 58, changes to the definitions of “Bulk Plant” and “Industrial Plant” clarified the intent of the NFPA Technical Committee on Liquefied Petroleum Gases by stating that each of those types of facilities utilize only containers greater than 4,000 gallons water capacity. Therefore, modifications were made to Chapter 5 of this manual to remove references to containers between 2,000 and 4,000 gallons water capacity. The manual does retain information on containers less than 4,000 gallons water capacity due to the fact that some dispensing stations may be utilizing more than one container less than 4,000 gallons, but with an aggregate capacity greater than 4,000 gallons. Introduction Chapter 2 Unless product is being transferred, product control valves are normally in the closed position. However, some of the installations require an automatic shutoff feature when either a fire (or heat) is sensed or when other abnormal conditions occur. The product control valves include the following: Positive shutoff valve: A shutoff valve that, in the closed position, does not allow the flow of product in either direction. [NFPA 58, 3.3.85.7] Backflow check valve: This valve allows flow in one direction only and is used to allow a container to be filled while preventing product from flowing out of the container. Excess-flow valve: A valve designed to close when the liquid or vapor passing through it exceeds a prescribed flow rate. [NFPA 58, 3.3.85.3] Internal valve: A container primary shutoff valve that can be closed remotely, which incorporates an internal excess flow valve with the seat and seat disc located within the container so that they remain in place should external damage occur to the valve. [NFPA 58, 3.3.85.6] Emergency shutoff valve: A shutoff valve incorporating thermal and manual means of closing that also provides for a remote means of closing. [NFPA 58, 3.3.85.2] Hydrostatic pressure relief valve: A type of relief valve that is set to open and relieve pressure in a liquid hose or pipe segment between two shutoff valves when the pressure exceeds the setting of the valve. Container pressure relief valve: A type of pressure relief device designed to open and then close to prevent excess internal fluid pressure in a container without releasing the entire contents of the container. The valve is located in the vapor space of the container. Bulk storage installations incorporate several product release control appurtenances. This fire safety analysis manual outlines alternative schematics for the various facilities covered (4,000 gallons or less and greater than 4,000 gallons water capacity). LP Gas Facility Owner: Ray Energy Contact Name: Ken Ray Contact Telephone #: 518-874-4510 Contact Email Address:kenray@rayenergy.com Mailing Address: 2794 Seventh Avenue Troy, NY 12180 Facility Location: 3893 US Route 11 Cortlandville, NY 13045 PART 1 FACILITY INFORMATION FORM 4.1 CONFIDENTIAL FACILITY OWNER DATA FACILITY LOCATION DATA FORM 4.2 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 10,000 18,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 12* 720,000 Other: Other: Other: Aggregate Water Capacity 4 Individual Container Water Capacity (w.c.) (gallons) Total Water Capacity of each container size (gallons)Number of containers PART 2 FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Storage Capacity 1,2,3 CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL TYPE & FREQUENCY OF TRANSFER OPERATIONS Current estimated average receipt of 12 railcars per day and 24 transports fills daily. 12 720,000 12 ABOVE GROUND 60,000 GWC ASME PROPANE VESSELS * 6 TANKS SET IN PHASE I AND 6 TANKS SET IN PHASE II Notes: (1) Column D = Column B x Column C. (2) Parked bobtails, transports and tank cars should not be considered for aggregate capacity calculations. (3) Do not consider containers that are not connected for use. (4) For the purpose of this manual, “Aggregate Water Capacity” means any group of single ASME storage containers separated from each other by distances less than those stated in the aboveground containers column of Table 6.3.1.1. Type of LP-Gas Facility:Commercial Industrial ✔Bulk Storage Facility is located in:Rural Area Suburban Area ✔Commercial Town Industrial Zone Facility neighbors*✔Agra Fields ✔Commercial Bldgs.Manufacturing Industrial Activity ( metal fabrication, cutting and welding, etc) Flammable Liquids Storage Other (explain) Geographic Location of Plant: 3893 US Route 11 Address: Cortlandville, NY 13045 Landmarks, if any: LP-Gas Liquid supply by:Bobtail ✔Truck Transport ✔Rail Car LP-Gas Distribution by: Bobtail ✔Truck Transport Vapor Piping Liquid Piping Dispensing or Vehicle Liquid Fueling # of Vehicle Entrances:✔One Two More than two (in/out) Type of Access Roads to the Facility: Rural Town ✔State Route 11 Entrance 1: Dirt Road Gravel entrance ✔Paved (main) Entrance 2: Dirt Road Gravel entrance Paved Staff Presence:Not Staffed 24 hours a day, 6 days a week Staffed Always ✔during business hours Location and distances to Institutional Occupancies surrounding the facility, if any, within 250 ft from the boundary in the direction of the assets. Overview plot plan of the facility attached:✔yes no * All properties either abutting the LP-Gas facility or within 250 feet of the container or transfer point nearest to facility boundary. NONE CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL PART 2 FACILITY INFORMATION Additional Information on the LP-Gas Facility FORM 4.3 Form 5.3 A BC E F G Required by NFPA 58 (2017 edition) Installed on the container Inlet 5-2 3 2 2 Outlet 5-3 2 2 2 Inlet 5-6 A 2 4 4 Outlet 5-7 A 1 4 4 Inlet 5-2 3 2 2 Outlet 5-3 2 2 2 Inlet 5-6 A 2 4 4 Outlet 5-7 A 1 4 4 Inlet 5-2 3 2 2 Outlet 5-3 2 2 2 Inlet 5-6 A 2 4 4 Outlet 5-7 A 1 4 4 Inlet 5-2 3 2 2 Outlet 5-3 2 2 2 Inlet 5-6 A 2 4 4 Outlet 5-7 A 1 4 4 Inlet 5-2 3 2 2 Outlet 5-3 2 2 2 Inlet 5-6 A 2 4 4 Outlet 5-7 A 1 4 4 *All 12 vessels are equipped with the same manual and safety valve configuration. Vapor Same reference as indicated above 3 Vapor Liquid 1* Liquid 5 Vapor Vapor Liquid 4 D If in Form 5.3 any one of the numbers in column F is less than the number in Column E of the corresponding row, these items must be addressed and brought into compliance with the specific edition of NFPA 58 that the facility was constructed to. Figure # Compliance with Code Requirements for Appurtenances on Containers Having a Water Capacity Greater Than 4,000 Gallons Used in Bulk Plants and Industrial Plants PART 3 ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT CONTROL MEASURES IN CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER PIPING CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL **If the container does not provide an opening for the specific function listed, enter 0 (zero) in columns E and F corresponding to that row. See Table 5.9.4.2 LP-Gas inlet to and outlet from the container** Liquid Total Number of Product Release Control Appurtenances NFPA 58 Section Reference (2017 edition) Liquid Container # 2 Vapor Note: Container appurtenances shown are illustrative of product control equipment only. See NFPA 58 for all container appurtenances required. Illustrations are not intended to be used for system design purposes. Figure 5-2: Vapor Inlet Appurtenances on Containers of Water Capacity Greater Than 2,000 Gallons in bulk and industrial plants CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL PART 3 ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT CONTROL MEASURES IN CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER PIPING Note: Container appurtenances shown are illustrative of product control equipment only. See NFPA 58 for all container appurtenances required. Illustrations are not intended to be used for system design purposes. PART 3 ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT CONTROL MEASURES IN CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER PIPING CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Figure 5-3: Vapor Outlet Appurtenances on Containers of Water Capacity Greater Than 2,000 Gallons in bulk and industrial plants Note: Container appurtenances shown are illustrative of product control equipment only. See NFPA 58 for all container appurtenances required. Illustrations are not intended to be used for system design purposes. PART 3 ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT CONTROL MEASURES IN CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER PIPING CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Figure 5-6A Liquid Inlet Valves on Containers With Water Capacity Greater Than 4,000 Gallons in New installations Note: Container appurtenances shown are illustrative of product control equipment only. See NFPA 58 for all container appurtenances required. Illustrations are not intended to be used for system design purposes. PART 3 ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT CONTROL MEASURES IN CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER PIPING CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Figure 5-7A: Liquid Outlet Valves on Containers with Water Capacity Greater Than 4,000 Gallons in New installations Yes No Installed within 20 ft. of lineal pipe from the nearest end of the hose or swivel-type connections.✔6.14.2 6.14.3 Automatic shutoff through thermal (fire) actuationwith melting point of thermal element <250ºF ✔6.14.6 Temperature sensitive element (fusible link) installed within 5 ft from the nearest end of the hose or swivel type piping connected to liquid transfer line. ✔6.14.6 Manual shutoff feature provided at ESV installed location.✔6.14.12.1 Manual shutoff device provided at a remote location, not less than 25 ft., and not more than 100 ft. from the ESV. ✔6.14.12.2 An ESV is installed on each leg of a multi leg piping each of which is connected to a hose or a swivel type connection on one side and to a header of size 1 1/2 inch in diameter or larger on the other side. ✔6.14.5 6.14.9 Breakaway stanchion is provided such that in any pull-away break will occur on the hose or swivel- type connection side while retaining intact the valves and piping on the plant side. ✔6.14.8 Installed downstream of the hose or swivel-type connection N/A N/A 6.14.8 BCK is designed for this specific application.N/A N/A 6.14.3 and 6.12.4 A BCK is installed on each leg of a multi-leg piping each of which is connected to a hose or a swivel type connection on one side and to a header of 1 1/2 inch in diameter or larger on the other side. N/A N/A 6.14.5 Breakaway stanchion is provided such that in any pull- away break will occur on the hose or swivel-type connection side while retaining intact the valves and piping on the plant side. N/A N/A 6.14.8 3 Debris Protection++ Liquid inlet piping is designed or equipped to prevent debris and foreign material from entering the system. ✔6.21.2.5 4 Emergency discharge control Flow through facility hose used to transfer LP-Gas from non-metered cargo tank vehicle into containers will stop within 20 seconds of a complete hose separation without human intervention. ✔6.21.2.6 (3) ** In lieu of an emergency shutoff valve, the backflow check valve (BCK) is only permitted when flow is only into the container and shall have a metal-to-metal seat or a primary resilient seat with metal backup, not hinged with a combustible material (6.14.3, 6.14.4). ++ Retrofit required for existing facilities by July 1, 2011. PART 4 ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT CONTROL MEASURES IN CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER PIPING Requirements for Transfer Lines of 1 1/2 inch Diameter or Larger, Liquid-into-Containers Appurtenance (Either No. 1 or No. 2)** NFPA 58 Section Reference (2017 edition) Installed in the Facility?Appurtenance Provided with the FeatureItem # CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Form 5.4 Emergency Shutoff Valve (ESV) (Ref § 6.12) Back flow Check Valve (BCK)** 1 2 Yes No Installed within 20 ft. of lineal pipe from the nearest end of the hose or swivel-type connections. ✔6.14.2 6.14.3 Automatic shutoff through thermal (fire) actuation with melting point of thermal element <250ºF ✔ 6.14.6 Temperature sensitive element (fusible link) installed within 5 ft from the nearest end of the hose or swivel type piping connected to liquid transfer line. ✔ 6.14.6 Manual shutoff feature provided at ESV installed location.✔6.14.12.1 Manual shutoff device provided at a remote location, not less than 25 ft., and not more than 100 ft. from the ESV. ✔ 6.14.12.2 An ESV is installed on each leg of a multi leg piping each of which is connected to a hose or a swivel type connection on one side and to a header of size 1 1/2 inch in diameter or larger on the other side. ✔6.14.5 6.14.9 Breakaway stanchion is provided such that in any pull-away break will occur on the hose or swivel-type connection side while retaining intact the valves and piping on the plant side. ✔ 6.14.8 Number of ESV's in liquid withdrawal service 1 Emergency Shutoff Valve (ESV) (Ref § 6.12) 1 Note: If more than one ESV is installed in the facility, use one Form 5.5 for each ESV. PART 4 ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT CONTROL MEASURES IN CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER PIPING CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Form 5.5 Requirements for Transfer Lines of 1 1/2 inch Diameter or Larger, Liquid-withdrawal from Containers (TO TRANSPORT UNLOAD/FILL STATION) Item # Appurtenance Appurtenance Provided with the Feature Installed in the Facility?NFPA 58 Section Reference (2017 edition) Yes No Installed within 20 ft. of lineal pipe from the nearest end of the hose or swivel-type connections. ✔6.14.2 6.14.3 Automatic shutoff through thermal (fire) actuation with melting point of thermal element <250ºF ✔6.14.6 Temperature sensitive element (fusible link) installed within 5 ft from the nearest end of the hose or swivel type piping connected to liquid transfer line. ✔6.14.6 Manual shutoff feature provided at ESV installed location.✔6.14.12.1 Manual shutoff device provided at a remote location, not less than 25 ft., and not more than 100 ft. from the ESV. ✔6.14.12.2 An ESV is installed on each leg of a multi leg piping each of which is connected to a hose or a swivel type connection on one side and to a header of size 1 1/2 inch in diameter or larger on the other side. ✔6.14.5 6.14.9 Breakaway stanchion is provided such that in any pull-away break will occur on the hose or swivel-type connection side while retaining intact the valves and piping on the plant side. ✔6.14.8 Installed downstream of the hose or swivel-type connection N/A N/A 6.14.3 BCK is designed for this specific application.N/A N/A 6.14.4 A BCK is installed on each leg of a multi leg piping each of which is connected to a hose or a swivel type connection on one side and to a header of 1-1/4 inch in diameter or larger on the other side. N/A N/A 6.14.5 Breakaway protection is provided such that in any pullaway break will occur on the hose or swivel-type connection side while retaining intact the valves and piping on the plant side. N/A N/A 6.14.8 PART 4 ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT CONTROL MEASURES IN CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER PIPING Requirements for Vapor Transfer Lines 1 1/4-inch Diameter or Larger Appurtenance 1 NFPA 58 Section Reference (2017 edition) Installed in the Facility? Appurtenance Provided with the FeatureItem # Emergency Shutoff Valve (ESV) (Ref § 6.12) Form 5.6CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL 2 Backflow check valve (BCK)** ** In lieu of an emergency shutoff valve, the backflow check valve (BCK) is only permitted when flow is only into the container and it shall have a metal- to-metal seat or a primary resilient seat with metal backup, not hinged with a combustible material (6.14.3, 6.14.4). If a checkmark is made in the “No” column of any one of Form 5.4, Form 5.5 or Form 5.6, then these items must be addressed and brought into compliance with the specific edition of NFPA 58 that the facility was constructed to. If the LP-Gas facility is designed using ALTERNATE PROVISIONS for the installation of ASME CONTAINERS, then continue the analysis below. Otherwise skip section 5.3 and go to Chapter 6. ACDEF Yes No 1 Redundant Fail-Safe equipment and Low Emission transfer lines are provided for each container of water capacity greater than 2,000 gal through 30,000 gal ✔ 6.30.3 and 6.30.4 Internal Valve with integral excess flow valve or excess flow protection ✔6.30.3.1 Positive Shutoff Valve installed as close as possible to the Internal Valve ✔6.30.3.4 Internal Valve with integral excess flow valve or excess flow protection or Back Flow Check valve ✔6.30.3.5 Positive Shutoff Valve installed as close as possible to the Internal Valve or the back flow check valve ✔6.30.3.5 Flow Into or Out of Railroad tank car Internal Valve installed in the transfer hose or the swivel-type piping at the tank car end ✔ 6.21.2.6(1) and 6.30.4.1 Flow Only into railroad tank car Internal valve or backflow check valve installed in the transfer hose or the swivel-type piping at the tank car end ✔ 6.21.2.6 (2) and 6.30.4.1 5 Protection provided in accordance with 6.26.4.1 N/A N/A 6.30.4.1 Actuated by Fire Detection ✔6.30.4.2 Actuated by a hose pull-away due to vehicle motion ✔6.30.4.2 Remote shutdown station within 15 ft of the point of transfer?✔6.30.4.3(A) Another remote shutdown station between 25 ft and 100 ft of the transfer point? ✔6.30.4.3(B) Shutdown stations will shut down electrical power supply, if any, to the transfer equipment and primary valves? ✔6.30.4.3 Signs complying with the requirements of 6.24.4..3 (C) provided? ✔6.30.4.3(C) Note:If the facility does not have a rail terminal, enter “NA” in both the “Yes” Column and the “No” Column in item 4 of this Form in the railroad tank car row. Similar option is also available if there is no cargo tank vehicle transfer station. Manually operated remote shutdown of IV and ESV Installed in the facility? 7 FeaturesDescriptionItem# 2 Automatic closure of all primary valves (IV & ESV) in an Emergency 6 Cargo Tank Transfer Railcar Transfer LIQUID OR VAPOR INLET 3 4 B Evaluation of Redundant and Fail-Safe Design PART 4 ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT CONTROL MEASURES IN CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER PIPING LIQUID OR VAPOR WITHDRAWAL (1-1/4 in. or larger) Container Sizes for which the appurtenances are provided NFPA 58 Section Reference (2017 edition) FORM 5.7CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Yes No 1 Lighting Provide lighting for nighttime operations to illuminate storage containers, container being loaded, control valves, and other equipment. ✔6.21.5 2 Vehicle impact protection Protection against vehicular (traffic) impacts on containers, transfer piping and other appurtenances is designed and provided commensurate with the size of vehicles and type of traffic in the facility. ✔6.27.3.13 3 Protection against corrosion Provide protection against corrosion where piping is in contact with supports or corrosion causing sub-stances. ✔ 6.19 Is an industrial type or chain link fence of at least 6 ft high or equivalent protection provided to enclose (all around) container appurtenances, pumping equipment, loading and unloading and container filling facilities? ✔6.21.4.2 Are at least two means of emergency accesses (gates) from the enclosure provided?✔6.21.4.2(A) Is a clearance of, at least, 3 feet all around to allow emergency access to the required means of egress been provided? ✔6.21.4.2(B) Guard Service If a guard service is provided, does this service cover the LP-Gas plant and are the guard personnel provided with appropriate LP-Gas related training, per section 4.4 of NFPA 58? N/A Guard service not used N/A 6.21.4.3 4B Lock-in-Place Devices Are Lock-in-Place devices provided to prevent unauthorized use or operation of any container appurtenance, system valves, equipment in lieu of the fence requirements above? N/A N/A 6.21.4.2(D) NFPA 58 Section Reference (2017 edition) Features Evaluation of LP-Gas facility's Physical Protection Measures. Tank control valves and piping will be protected from vehicular traffic with guardrail, and tampering with any equipment by a chain link fence of at least 6 ft in height that encompasses entire property. Fencing will include access and egress gates. Perimeter Fence PART 5 ANALYSIS OF LOCAL CONDITIONS OF HAZARD CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Evaluation of Physical Protection and Other Measures FORM 6.1 4A Installed in the Facility? Item# Note: Fill only items 1, 2, 3, and 4A or 4B. Indicate with “NA” when not filling the “Yes” or “No” column. Yes No 1 ✔6.5.3.3 2 ✔6.5.3.6 3 ✔ 6.25.2 4 ✔6.25.3 5 ✔7.2.3.2 6 ✔6.29.4.2 7 ✔9.3.5 and 9.4.7 8 ✔ 7.2.3.2(B) & 9.4.10 Is the prohibition on smoking within the facility premises strictly enforced? Is an approved, portable, dry chemical fire extinguisher of minimum capacity 18 lbs and have a B:C rating provided in the facility? Are ignition control procedures and requirements during liquid transfer operations complied with? Are electrical equipment located and wiring installed per Code requirements? Note: Insert “NA” in both “Yes” and “No” columns of any items that are not applicable. Note: See NFPA 58 for complete requirements. Is distance at least 20 ft between containers and tanks containing flammable liquids with flash point less than 200ºF (ex., gasoline, diesel)? Are open flame equipment located and used according to code? NFPA 58 Section Reference (2017 edition) Is an approved, portable, dry chemical fire extinguisher of minimum capacity 18 lbs and have a B:C rating provided on each truck or trailer used to transport portable containers? Installed in the Facility? PART 5 ANALYSIS OF LOCAL CONDITIONS OF HAZARD # Are combustible materials, weeds and tall grass not closer than 10 ft from each container? Ignition Source Control Assessment Sources of Ignition and Requirements Pertaining to Adjacent Combustible Materials FORM 6.2CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL FORM 6.3 Yes No Above Ground 25 N/A N/A Underground or Mounded 10 N/A N/A Between Containers 3 N/A N/A Aboveground 50 N/A N/A Underground or Mounded 50 N/A N/A Between containers 5 N/A N/A Above Ground 75 ✔ Underground or Mounded 50 N/A N/A Between Containers 1/4 sum of diameters of adjacent containers ✔ Above Ground 100 N/A N/A Underground or Mounded 50 N/A N/A Between Containers 1/4 sum of diameters of adjacent containers N/A N/A 5 All sizes greater than 125 gal Separation distance between a LP-Gas container and an above ground storage tank containing flammable or combustible liquids of flash points below 200ºF. 20 N/A N/A 6.5.3.6 and 6.5.3.7 Separation Distances from Containers to Buildings, Property Line that can be Built Upon, Inter-container Distances, and Aboveground flammable or Combustible Storage Tanks 6.4.1, 6.4.2 and Table 6.4.1.1 Container Size Range in Gallon (W.C.) of largest container in group Note: If any of the container sizes indicated in the above form are not present in the facility, enter “NA” in both Yes and No columns. PART 5 ANALYSIS OF LOCAL CONDITIONS OF HAZARD CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Assessment of separation distances between containers and important buildings, other properties, build-able property lines, and transfer points, shows the LP-Gas facility will meet all requirements for separation distances as required in NFPA 58. Is the Facility Compliant NFPA 58 Section Reference (2017 edition) 30,001 through 70,000 Minimum Distance (ft) 3 Separation between a neighboring buildable property line, important bldg or other property and the nearest container which is Item # 501 through 2,000 70,001 through 90,000 4 2,001 through 30,000 2 1 Yes No 1 N/A 10 N/A 2 ✔25 ✔ 3 N/A 25 N/A 4 ✔25 ✔ 5 N/A 50 N/A From points of transfer in LP-Gas dispensing stations and at vehicle fuel dispensers. ✔10 ✔ From other points of transfer ✔25 ✔ 7 ✔5 ✔ 8 ✔25 ✔ 9 N/A 10 N/A 10 N/A 20 N/A 11 N/A 10 N/A 12 N/A 10 N/A 6.27.4.3 6 Buildings with other than fire resistive walls. Section 6.7.2 Table 6.7.2.1 Containers other than those being filled Mainline railroad track centerlines Check if exposure is present Item # Buildings, mobile homes, recreational vehicles, and modular homes with fire-resistive walls. NFPA 58 Section Reference (2017 edition) Line of adjoining property that can be built upon. Building wall openings or pits at or below the level of the point of transfer. NOTE: Place a checkmark in column C against an exposure that is present in or around the facility. Fill columns E or F for only those rows for which there is a checkmark in column C. If the facility contains low emission transfer equipment (i.e, all equipment identified in Form 5.7 are installed and are in working order), then the minimum separation distances in column D of Form 6.4 can be reduced to one half of the indicated values. FORM 6.4 PART 5 ANALYSIS OF LOCAL CONDITIONS OF HAZARD CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL LP-Gas dispensing device located close to a Class I liquid dispensing device. Separation Distances between Points of Transfer and other Exposures Type of Exposure within or outside the facility boundary Driveways Public ways, including public streets, highways, thoroughfares, and sidewalks. Outdoor places of public assembly, including school yards, athletic fields, and playgrounds. Assessment of separation distances between transfer points and other exposures shows facility will be compliant Flammable and Class II combustible liquid dispensers and aboveground & underground containers. Minimum Distance (ft) Flammable and Class II combustible liquid dispensers and the fill connections of LPG containers. Is the Facility Compliant YES NO 1 STORAGE CONTAINER ✔GUIDE/GUARD RAIL AROUND TANKS WHERE THERE IS ANY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC 2 TRANSFER STATIONS ✔BOLLARDS AT ALL PIPING LOCATIONS AND TRUCK STATIONS 3 ENTRY WAY INTO PLANT ✔FENCING AROUND ENTIRE FACILITY PART 5 ANALYSIS OF LOCAL CONDITIONS OF HAZARD PROTECTION AGAINST VEHICULAR IMPACT NFPA 58 Section Reference (2017 Edition) 6.8.1.2, 6.8.6.1(B), 6.8.6.1(C), 6.11.3.10, and 6.27.3.13 IS PHYSICAL PROTECTION SYSTEM PROTECTED TYPE OF PHYSICAL PROTECTION# CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL FORM 6.7 PART 6 EXPOSURE TO AND FROM OTHER PROPERTIES, POPULATION DENSITY CHAPTER 7 Exposure To and From Other Properties, Population Density 7.1 Exposure to Off-Site Properties and Persons From In-Plant Propane Releases Types of Propane Fires: A propane release inside the LP-Gas facility may affect adjacent properties and off-site populations if the release is of a sufficiently large size. An immediately ignited release will result in a local fire. Depending upon the characteristics of the release and ignition two types of local fires can occur, namely, a pool fire on any liquid pool of propane on the ground or a burning rising fireball. If the released propane is not immediately ignited, then a dispersing cloud (or plume) of vapor will form. The cloud or plume will move in the direction of the wind. Because of the mixing of air with the dispersing propane, propane concentration decreases continuously both with downwind distance as well as in the crosswind direction. This cloud or plume can be ignited at any distance downwind by an ignition source when the concentration at the point of ignition is within the Lower Flammability Limit (LFL) to Upper Flammability Limit (UFL) range. For propane the range of flammable concentrations in air is between 2.15% and 9.6% by volume. Ignition of a dispersing vapor cloud or plume may result in a flashback type of vapor fire. In extremely rare cases, and only when the physical conditions are conducive, with partial or full confinement of the propane-air mixture of proper concentration and its ignition, a vapor explosion can occur, resulting in a blast wave. If the dispersing cloud is not ignited it poses no hazard to the surrounding area. Propane vapor at ambient pressure and temperature is heavier than air. Hence, any vapor released will tend to flow towards and accumulate in low-lying areas adjacent to the release location. If a building or other semi-confined area exists adjacent to the release location wherein the vapor can accumulate in the lower parts of the building, a potential explosion hazard will result. Hazardous Effects of a Fire: The effect of a propane fire on an off-site property will depend on the type and material of construction of the structure and its distance from the fire and fire size. Similarly, the number of off-site persons adversely impacted by a fire inside a LP-Gas facility will also depend on, (in addition to the characteristics of the fire and the distance between the fire and the population) the type of population, the timeliness of notification, the effectiveness of the evacuation planning and implementation, etc. Release Cases: In this manual, a number of mathematical models were developed for credible accident scenarios, to describe the effects of the release of propane inside LP-Gas facilities and its subsequent behavior. These models were used to calculate potential hazard areas for each scenario of release. Each potential release discussed has very low probability of occurrence. However, because of the flammability of propane, such releases may pose hazards. The hazard distance (to a property outside the facility boundary or to off-site persons) from a propane release within the facility will depend on the size and duration of release, and the type of fire that occurs. The calculated distance to which a hazard extends under each scenario of release and for each hazard behavior is indicated in Table 7.1. To assess the hazards posed to offsite population from in-plant releases of propane it is necessary to: 1. Note the type of occupancies surrounding the facility, and 2. Describe in detail the characteristics and density of the population surrounding the facility. To evaluate the impact on the surrounding population from an in-plant propane release, complete Form 7.2 using the results indicated in Table 7.1. Model # Vapor Dispersion Distance to LFL Explosion Hazard Distance (ft) Fire Ball Radiation Distance 1a 1" ID x 150 ft hose length 250 110 50 1b 1" ID x 120 ft hose length 230 103 45 1c 1" ID x 75 ft hose length 190 90 40 2a 135 120 25 2b 230 252 48 2c 328 235 74 2d 269 252 59 2e 312 287 69 2f 256 284 55 2g 455 284 106 2h 407 410 89 3 4 250 120 50 5 110 120 5 Release of the inventory in a transfer piping 3" x 80 ft @100 gpm for 10 mins Release of inventory from transfer piping 4" x 30 ft. + 200 gpm for 10 minutes Release from the container pressure relief valve No ignitable vapor concentration at ground level Release from a 1" ID x 150 ft transfer piping to a vaporizer and reduced flow from a partially open excess flow valve @ 20 gpm for 10 min. Leak from a corrosion hole in a transfer pipe at a back pressure of 130 psig (corresponding to 80 oF) for 60 min. Hole size is 1/4" ID. Release of the inventory in a transfer piping 3" x 18 ft @100 gpm for 10 mins. PART 6 EXPOSURE TO AND FROM OTHER PROPERTIES, POPULATION DENSITY TABLE 7.1 Distances to Various Types of Propane Hazards Under Different Release Models Details of the Propane Release Model Releases from or due to Bobtail hose failure. Release of the entire inventory in the hose, quickly. Release of the inventory in a transfer piping 1" x 30 ft @ 20 gpm for 10 min., due to failed excess flow valve. Release of the inventory in a transfer piping 2" x 30 ft @80 gpm for 10 mins. Release of the inventory in a transfer piping 2” x 80 ft. @ 70 gpm for 10 mins. Release of the inventory in a transfer piping 2.5" x 30 ft @80 gpm for 10 mins. Release of the inventory in a transfer piping 3" x 30 ft @100 gpm for 10 mins. CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Model # Details of the Propane Release Model Releases from or due to Vapor Dispersion Distance to LFL Explosion Hazard Distance (ft) Fire Ball Radiation Distance 6a Release of the entire inventory in a 2.5"ID x 20 ft., transfer hose. 195 90 40 6b Release of the entire inventory in a 2.5 inch dia. transfer hose x 16 ft. length 215 98 45 6c Release of the entire inventory in a 3-inch dia. transfer hose x 12 ft. length 230 100 46 6d Release of the entire inventory in a 1.25-inch diameter transfer hose x 20 ft. in length 138 66 27 7a Transport hose blow down: Hose size 2" ID, 20 ft length release for 3min., from a Transport after the tank is filled. 25 30 <5 7b Transport hose blow down: Hose size 2.5" ID, 16 ft length release for 3min., from a Transport after the tank is filled. 25 29 <5 7c Transport hose blow down: Hose size 3" ID, 16 ft length release for 3min., from a Transport after the tank is filled. 31 36 <5 PART 6 EXPOSURE TO AND FROM OTHER PROPERTIES, POPULATION DENSITY CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL TABLE 7.1 (continued) Distances to Various Types of Propane Hazards Under Different Release Models ** ** Results from models described in Appendix B. Form 7.1 Model # from Table 7.1 Hazard Distance(2) (feet) Is an Occupancy located within the hazard distance from the facility? Yes/No 2h 410 No 2h 410 No 2h 410 No PART 6 EXPOSURE TO AND FROM OTHER PROPERTIES, POPULATION DENSITY Types of Occupancies (1) Near or Surrounding the LP-Gas Facility CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Types of Occupancies Institutional Occupancies (Elderly Persons Home or Nursing Home, Hospitals, Alcohol & Drug Rehabilitation Centers, Prisons) Educational Occupancies (Elementary Schools, Day Care facilities, etc). Notes: (1) Different types of occupancies are defined in NFPA 5000 (2) Table 7.1 provides a number of scenarios that can result in propane release, and the resulting area exposed for different ignition mechanisms. Determine the scenarios that are applicable to the facility, for the quantities that can be released, and enter the greatest value from Table 7.1. Use the hose diameters and length that will be used at the facility if they differ from the ones in Table 7.1 and recalculate the hazard distances using a spreadsheet method that is available at npga.org. Some scenarios may not be applicable to an installation because of other mitigation measures implemented, such as a hose management procedure to minimize the possibility of hose failure. Assembly Occupancies (Places of worship, Libraries, Theaters and Auditoriums, Food or Drink Bars, Sports Stadiums, Amusement Parks, Transportation centers, etc. with 50 or more people. AB CD YES NO 1 Petroleum and other hazardous material storage, wholesale dispensing, etc.NA NA 2 Metal cutting, welding, and metal fabrication NA NA 3 Industrial Manufacturing that can pose external hazards NA NA 4 Ports, rail yards and trans-shipment terminals handling flammable and explosive materials. ✔* 5 Other operations that may pose hazards (Gasoline and other hazardous material dispensing stations, fertilizer storage, etc.)NA NA All code and local setbacks are met, and all points of transfer and storage for each neighboring operation meet and exceed set back requirements from one another. PART 6 EXPOSURE TO AND FROM OTHER PROPERTIES, POPULATION DENSITY FORM 7.2CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Note: If a particular activity in column B does not exist, fill both "YES" and "NO" columns with "NA". Type of Neighboring OperationItem # Hazard exists to the LP-Gas Facility Exposure to LP-Gas Facility from External Hazards PART 7 EVALUATION OF FIRE SERVICES AND WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS CHAPTER 8 Evaluation of Fire Services and Water Supply Requirements In this chapter the procedure for evaluating the capability and resources of the local fire department (FD) that would respond to an emergency at the LP-Gas facility is discussed. This evaluation includes the training of FD personnel, availability of suitable fire apparatus and equipment, and determination of water requirements if such a system were to be installed at the facility. 8.1 Details of the Fire Service Use Form 8.1 to record the relevant data on personnel and resources from the local FD or fire company that is responsible for the area where the LP-Gas facility is located. This is a good opportunity to establish a working relationship with the fire department as you will need their support as you go forward with this planning and evaluation process and they will need to understand the facility to provide maximum assistance should an incident occur at the facility. Analyzing the data from Form 8.1: The designation of the fire fighters as career personnel or volunteers has no bearing on the expertise of the department. The purpose of items 4 and 5 in Form 8.1 is to help determine how fast the initial help might be available. Career fire fighters are in the station and available to respond. Volunteer fire fighters may have to come from home or their place of business. Career fire fighters can normally have a piece of fire apparatus responding within one minute of receiving the call, volunteers may take 4-5 minutes to reach the station before they can respond. Item # 6 helps determine the level of skill of the fire fighters in the fire department. NFPA 1001, Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, defines the expertise required of a fire fighter to be qualified to Levels I and II. A Level I fire fighter can do general fire fighting tasks under close supervision and a Level II fire fighter can do those and more tasks under general supervision. Item # 7A is critical to determining if an effective operation can be conducted. For fighting a fire, at least two fire fighters are required for each 125 gpm hose line used. In addition, an incident commander, a safety officer, additional supervisory officers (depending on the size of the incident), and an operator for each piece of fire apparatus that is being used (pumping or performing some other function) is required. Also required is a rapid intervention crew (RIC) of 2 fire fighters when the first firefighting crew is deployed into a hazardous area, with that team growing to 4 fire fighters when the second and subsequent crews enter the hazardous area. The role of the RIC is to perform a rescue of one or more fire fighters that may be injured during the operation. Item # 7B and Item # 7C help determine the training and knowledge of the fire fighters in hazardous materials and the specific hazards of LP-Gas. NFPA 472 is Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents. PART 7 EVALUATION OF FIRE SERVICES AND WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS Item # 8A and Item # 8B help determine the capability of fire apparatus that will or could respond to an incident. A 125 gpm hose line is a typical hose line used for firefighting where the fire fighters are expected to advance and maneuver the line while it is flowing. Response time: Another important consideration of the effectiveness of the Fire Department to respond to an incident is the time it takes the FD to reach the LP-Gas facility. Many fire departments have multiple fire stations or use mutual aid fire companies from other communities to assist them so resources are coming from different locations. It is therefore important to determine the total time for not only the first arriving apparatus but for subsequently arriving apparatus dispatched on the first alarm as well. You will need to work with the fire department and gather this information as well. Using Form 8.2, determine the time for all resources that would be dispatched on the first alarm to an emergency at the facility. Start by identifying and listing in column A the fire companies that would respond on a first alarm to an emergency. Then, for each company record the time it would take to receive and handle an alarm, for the company to turnout, and the time to respond. If the fire department does not have data that can help, some good averages to use are: • Alarm Receipt & Handling Time - 1 minute for the fire department first receiving the alarm and 3 minutes for mutual aid fire departments, • Turnout Time - 1 minute if the apparatus is staffed by career fire fighters and 4 minutes if the apparatus is staffed by volunteer fire fighters, • Travel Time - 2 minutes for each mile the fire apparatus must travel in an urban/suburban setting and 1.5 minutes for each mile the fire apparatus must travel in a rural setting. Total the times in columns B, C, and D for each company and enter the sum in Column E. This response time will give you an idea of how long it will take resources to reach the facility gate. Fire fighters must then determine the nature and severity of the emergency, determine how they are going to deal with the emergency, maybe establish a water supply from a hydrant or other source, and implement their attack. This can take anywhere from a couple of minutes to upwards of 30 minutes. 8.2 Water Needs and Availability The requirements for water to cool a container exposed to a fire are indicated in NFPA 15. A flow rate of 0.25 gpm/ft² (10 liter/min/m²) is specified as being adequate to cool a LP-Gas container exposed to a fire. Since a majority of the containers in the LP-Gas facilities have container penetration for liquid inflow or liquid outflow at only one end of the container and since any product leak occurring at one end and a subsequent fire will affect only the end zone of a container, it has been assumed that the container surface within only one half length of the container needs to be cooled for an effective prevention of damage to the container. Also, calculate the total volume of water required on the basis of a stream flow time of 10 minutes. Based on these parameters and the surface area of various size ASME containers, the cooling water rate requirements for each container size are determined using Form 8.3. Complete Form 8.3 with information relevant to the facility. Start by identifying the largest container at the facility. Assume that a fire occurs at the end of that container where the appurtenances for PART 7 EVALUATION OF FIRE SERVICES AND WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS product inflow and outflow are located, and determine whether other containers are within 50 feet of this largest container. Identify the largest container at the facility and all stationary containers within 50 feet of the largest container. Record in column F of Form 8.3 the largest container. Next, record in Column F the two containers that are within 50 feet of the largest, and which have the most surface area exposed to the end of the largest container at which the appurtenances are installed. These are the containers, which are most likely to be affected by a fire occurring at the appurtenances of the largest container. Multiply the number of containers recorded in Column F by the required water flow rate per container in Column E and enters the result in Column G. Sum the values in Column G and enter the sum in Cell 2a, Column G. Round this number up to the next multiple of 125 (i.e. 725 gpm would round up to 750 gpm). This is done because the application of water by the fire department is generally going to be in increments of 125 gpm. Enter that figure in Cell 2b, Column G. You have now determined the application rate for cooling water that is necessary if the largest container is subjected to fire. Add 250 gpm (Cell 3, Column G) for use by fire fighters to protect personnel when approaching the container or its valves to control the flow of product. Sum the numbers in Cells 2b and 3 of Column G. Enter that number in Cell 4, Column G. To determine the total volume of water required for a 10-minute application time, multiply the total water flow rate in Cell 4, Column G by 10 and enter that figure into Cell 4, Column H. FORM 8.1 Item #Data Entry 1 CORTLANDVILLE FIRE DISTRICT 2A KEVIN WHITNEY 2B FIRE DISTRICT CHAIRMAN 3A 3/16/2022 3B KEVIN WHITNEY 4 VOLUNTEERS (UP TO 25) 5 15 6A Firefighter I Level 25 6B Firefighter II Level 15 7A Respond on the first alarm to the facility 15 7B Respond on the first alarm and who are qualified to the operations level requirements of NFPA 472 or local requirements. 10 7C Respond on the first alarm with specific knowledge and training on the properties of LP-Gas and LP-Gas fires. 5 8A Are in service in the department.5 8B Would respond on a first alarm.7 PART 7 EVALUATION OF FIRE SERVICES AND WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Data on the Responding Fire Department Date on which FD data was provided. Name of the person in the FD assisting with the data acquisition Name of the Fire Department (FD). Data Item Number of firefighters on duty at any time. Name of the person providing the data. Number of fire apparatus that have the capability to deploy a 125 gpm hose line supplied by onboard water for at least 4 minutes, and which: Number of firefighters who would: Number of firefighters qualified to Average number of firefighters available for response Position of the person in the FD assisting with the data acquisition A BCDE Company or Department Alarm receipt & Handling Turnout Travel Total Time (Minutes) CORTLANDVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE STATION 2 2428 CITY OF CORTLANDVILLE FIRE DEPT. SPECIAL REQUEST 224 8 CORTLANDVILLE FIRE DEPT. HEADQUARTERS STATION 24 612 HOMER FIRE DEPARTMENT AUTOMATIC ON REPORTED FIRE 25 714 VIRGIL FIRE DEPARTMENT - MUTUAL AID (2ND ALARM REQUEST)25916 MARATHON FIRE DEPARTMENT MUTUAL AID 25916 McGRAW FIRE DEPARTMENT 2 5 7 14 Note: Number in Column E=Sum of numbers from Columns B through D PART 7 EVALUATION OF FIRE SERVICES AND WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS Response Time data for the Fire Departments FORM 8.2CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL A BCDEFGH Item # ASME Container size (gallons) Total Surface area of each Container 1 (sq. ft.) Surface area of each container to be cooled (sq. ft.) Water flow rate required per container (gpm) Number of containers of the size indicated ± Total Water flow rate required. (B) (gpm) Total volume of water required for 10 min (gallons) 500 86 43 10.8 1000 172 86 21.5 2000 290 145 36.3 4000 374 187 46.8 6500 570 285 71.3 9200 790 395 98.8 12000 990 495 123.8 18000 1160 580 145 30000 1610 805 201.3 45000 2366 1183 295.8 60000 3090 1545 386.3 6 2317.8 23178 90000 4600 2300 575 other size: 2a 2317.8 23178 2b 2375 23750 3 250 2500 4 2625 26250 The total water requirement for the facility is indicated in item 4, column G (water flow rate) and column H (total water volume or quantity) of Form 8.3. If multiple groups of containers are present in the facility, repeat the calculations in Form 8.3 for each group of containers. The total water requirement for the facility is the largest value for any single group of containers. 1 ASME container approximate dimensions Line 2, column G and column H are the sum of numbers in each row above line 2 of each column ± Consider only 3 containers for water supply evaluations even if the number of containers in a group is more than 3. See Section 8.2. Line 4, Column G and Column H are the sum of number in rows 2 and 3 Water Flow Rate and Total Water Volume Required to Cool Containers Exposed to a fire Column G = Column F x Column E Column H = 10 x Column G 1 Total water rate and volume NOTE: Column D=(1/2) x Column C Column E = 0.25 (gpm/ft sqed) x Column D PART 7 EVALUATION OF FIRE SERVICES AND WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS FORM 8.3 Calculated water flow rate for container protection Water flow rate rounded up to nearest multiple of 125 Water for firefighter protection **if required CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL PART 7 EVALUATION OF FIRE SERVICES AND WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS Water Availability Evaluation If a water system is installed, Form 8.3 calculates the total water requirement for a 10-minute duration. This time period allows for manual shutdown, rescue of any injured, and the possibility of dispersing unignited gas. If there is a public or private water supply with hydrants available within 1000 feet of the container or containers on which water will be applied, determine the available flow rate from that system with 20 psi residual pressure. The water company may have flow test data or it may be necessary to conduct flow tests. If that flow rate is equal to or greater than the needed flow rate determined using Form 8.3, you can assume your water supply is adequate. If the hydrant flow rate is less than the needed flow rate, determine what other sources of water are available. Sources fall into two categories: water on fire apparatus responding to the incident, and water in rivers, ponds or lakes near the facility. Start by talking with the fire department about whether they have a tanker shuttle capability. Some departments have well-organized operations that can deliver 250 gpm or more on a continuous basis using tanker shuttles. This may be the only capability available or it may be a supplement to a weak hydrant system. Be sure to determine how long it would take to get the water shuttle established. If there is a river, pond or lake in the area, the fire department may be capable of drafting from that water source and pumping water through hose lines to the facility. There are a number of things that need to be considered before relying on this type of water supply. 1. Can a fire apparatus get close enough to the water source to reach the water with the suction hose it carries (normally 20 feet) and not have the lift (distance from the surface of the water to the center of the pump) greater than 10 feet? 2. Is the water source available year round? Does it dry up in the summer or freeze in the winter? The strainer on the suction hose needs to be at least 2 feet below the surface of the water. 3. Is the water source of adequate size or flow to supply the water needed? 4. Does the fire department have the hose and pumping apparatus to relay the water from the source to the fire? 5. How long will it take to set up this relay? These factors should be evaluated and discussed with the fire department before any decision is made to use such a supply. It might also be useful to have the fire department conduct an actual timed drill to deliver the needed water supply to the facility site using the normally responding complement of personnel and equipment. Complete Form 8.4 to document the water supply that will be available to the facility site. A BC Item # Water from Available? Hydrant data Distance from Container(s) on which water will be applied (feet) Available water flow rate from all hydrants (1) (gpm) Hydrant 1 #455: 3901 Rt 11 Green 1342 GPM @ 81 psi Hydrant 2 #456: 3885 Rt. 11 Green 1310 GPM @ 78 psi Comments: Note: Having the water available does not guarantee that the fire department has the resources to apply the water in a timely manner. Completed Form 8.2 will indicate how much time it will take for the fire department to have initial resources at the facility and how long before additional resources will be on-site. If the capability to apply cooling water within the first 10 minutes of initial fire exposure to the container is not present, extremely dangerous conditions could begin to develop. Note that it will take several minutes after the apparatus arrives at the facility gate before cooling water is actually applied to the containers and that hand held hose lines will be used with water supplied from the water tank on the apparatus. Even if hydrants are available, the staffing on the first arriving fire apparatus will probably not be sufficient to establish a water supply from the hydrant. Depending on the hydrant system and the fire department’s standard operating guidelines, it may be necessary to connect a pumper to the hydrant. If the distance is over 1000 ft. it may also be necessary to use hose from more than one fire apparatus to reach the hydrant and in some cases, to use intermediate pumpers in the hose line to boost the pressure. Form 8.1 contains information on responding apparatus capable of applying 125 gpm for 4 minutes. This is adequate to begin operations for a single container of 30,000 gallons or less water capacity if no other adjacent containers are exposed to the fire. However, a continuous water supply then has to be established within that 4 minutes or other apparatus must be available with onboard water to continue the cooling until a continuous water supply is set up. A larger facility or multiple containers exposing each other is a different situation. In those cases, cooling water may need to be applied using larger hand held hose lines or ground monitors to achieve the reach necessary with the water stream. Both of these require considerably more water than may be supplied by 125 gpm hose lines. Unless a hydrant system with an adequate flow rate is readily available, the time needed to establish an adequate water supply from remote hydrants, a relay operation from a static water source, or a sustainable tanker shuttle operation will greatly exceed the initial 10 minutes of fire exposure to the container and dangerous conditions could begin to develop. For these facilities, a fixed water spray system is the only practical means by which adequate protection can be provided to installations consisting of multiple 30,000 gallon or larger containers. Using the data you have gathered, it is recommended that you discuss with the fire department the resources available to protect the facility. This would include evaluating the knowledge and training of the fire fighters who would be arriving at the facility. 2 A nearby static water source stream, pond, lake, etc. ✔ * This is part of a separate water source and not connected to the hydrants listed above Sustainable flow rate: 1000 gpm (1) Obtain the flow rate in each hydrant from the local municipal water authority or the entity that supplies water to the hydran or conduct a test to determine total available flow rate. 3 Only through a mobile water tanker shuttle.✔ Source: Shuttle from Hydrant #386 Green* **The town is looking into access to the water source across the railroad tracks next to this property. As this time, it has not been established. If it is built in the future, this property would also use that water source. PART 7 EVALUATION OF FIRE SERVICES AND WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Form 8.4 Evaluation of Water Availability in or Near the LP-Gas Facility D Hydrant Location: 0.5 miles away at 250 Port Watson St. Cortland, NY 13045 Time to set up shuttle: 1 minute Travel time: minimal (0.5 miles) Quantitative information 1 Public supply or from another piped-in supply through one or more fire hydrants in or near the facility N/A** On part of dead end system - will get 2500 gpm total from hydrants Item #Reference FORM # Number of "NO" checked § N/A 0 N/A 0 5.4 0 5.5 0 5.6 0 5.7 0 5.8 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 § The number of "NO" for Forms from Section 5 is the difference between the required number of appurtenances according to NFPA 58-2017, and the (lesser) number found to be actually installed on the container or the transfer piping. 0 6.3.1 Separation distances; Container & outside exposures 6.4 Special Protection Measures 6.26.2 Ignition Source Control 6.3 6.3.2 Separation distances; Transfer points & outside exposures Product Control Measures in Containers & Transfer Piping 2: Product Control in Containers 1 0 4: Product Control in Transfer Piping 06.16.1 Physical Protection Measures 2 6.4 Analysis of Local Conditions of Hazard (Part 5) 0 Analysis Summary on Product Control and Local Conditions Hazard FORM 9.1CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL PART 8 EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR A PROPOSED NEW LP-GAS FACILITY Chapter Title Section & Title FORM 9.2 A DE Item #Reference FORM # Number of "Yes" checked Site inspection will be completed on a regular basis during normal days of business operation or at times of transfer. Analysis Summary on Exposure from and to the LP-Gas Facility CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL Additional Safety Initiatives in Product Release Control: Ray Energy will have a written safety policy to inspect facility hoses and piping on transfer as required. PART 8 EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR A PROPOSED NEW LP-GAS FACILITY Section & Title 7.2 Exposure to propane facility from external events Chapter Title Exposure to and from Other Properties 07.2 07.17.1 Exposure to off-site properties & persons from in-plant propane release 1 BC A D E F Item #Reference FORM # Number "zeros" entered in Column C, Lines 6 through 8 of form 8.1 Number of "Yes" Checked in Column C of Form 8.4 Evaluation of Emergency Fire Services show adequate response times and sources of water supply to meet the FSA criteria 28.4 08.1 8.1 Data on the Fire Department 1 FINAL DETERMINATION Section & Title Analysis Summary on Fire Department Evaluations PART 8 EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR A PROPOSED NEW LP-GAS FACILITY Chapter Title 2 Fire Department capability, adequacy of water supply and Emergency Planning (Part 7) 8.2 Fire response water needs and availability FORM 9.3CORTLANDVILLE RAIL TERMINAL BC PRC005025 Hildebrand, M., & Noll, G. (2001) Propane Emergencies. Maryland: Red Hat Publishing Fire Safety Analysis Manual for LP-Gas Storage Facilities, 2005 Propane Education and Research Council Technical References NFPA 58 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Handbook, Lemoff, NFPA, Quincy MA NFPA 58 Liquified Petroleum Gas Code, 2017 Edition Town of Hampton Planning Board Town of Hampton PO Box 125 Hampton, New York 12837 Reference Letter Ray Energy Propane Terminal Facility February 18, 2022 Location: 39 Golf Course Road, Hampton, New York The Hampton Planning Board was very impressed with Ken Ray, the principal of Ray Energy Corp, when we first met him. He contacted us prior to purchasing the land for the Propane Terminal facility, explained what his intentions were, and we discussed what was required in regards to the Hampton Site Plan Law. When Ray Energy came to the Board with the site plan application, the firm LA Group, with whom we are familiar, came to the planning board meeting, did a thorough presentation, answered many questions as to how the site would be developed. The Planning Board had meetings with Ken Ray and the consultants he worked with, especially the fire safety specialists who were very thorough, as there was much to learn. Ray Energy provided trained personnel to train our Fire Company in safety at a propane distribution facility. As this area of town has many residents all this road, our concern was for the safety of these citizens. At the public hearing, to which all adjoining residents received prior notice by mail; the residents had the opportunity to ask all the questions that they had, and these were all answered. This facility was approved by both the Town of Hampton and Washington County in 2016. Construction of the 2 railroad spurs, the installation of 4 large propane tanks, construction of the water pond with a hydrant that is available to our Fire Company for the neighborhood, construction for the main office building, landscaping and fencing of the entire perimeter, and installation of the pumping area for the tanker trucks, was all done in a professional manner, and parking areas all paved. Everything in this facility is run with state of art technology to operate in the as safe a manner as possible. In these pass years two additional tanks, 2 off loaders, and an extended parking area for the tank trucks, have been approved by our Planning Board, as we amended the additional site plan permit. The Ray Energy Corp went through the same application process, and were very forth-right with all the information we needed. The Town of Hampton has been very impressed with this facility. We have never had any complaints from the neighbors who live across the road, even though many propane tank rail cars come in on the rail line, especially in winter. There is a berm along the front side of the road that is landscaped, which cuts down any noise. Down lighting keeps lighting at a minimum. The Town has said many times, we wish we could find another “good neighbor” like Ray Terminals, for another piece of property further down the same road, as well done as this one. We believe you will be very happy with any facility built an d operated by this company. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 802 -770-6122 or at hamptonplanning94@gmail.com Bonnie Hawley, Hampton Planning Board Chair PROJECT LOCATION MAP C-1 SITE LOCATION MAP NAME APPROVED BY OWNER DATE NAPIERALA CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, P.C. COPYRIGHT C 2022 NO.REVISION/ISSUE DATE SHEETPROJECT NO.DATE 21-2046 03/22/2022 SHEET TITLE: TITLE SHEET IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEE WHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS. RAY ENERGY TERMINAL 3893 US ROUTE 11 TOWN OF CORTLANDVILLE CORTLAND COUNTY, NYRODNEY C IVES, JR, PE NYS REGISTRATION # 077843 PLAN SEAL BY: PREPARED BY: SHEET INDEX: 110 FAYETTE STREET MANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104 email: MNAP@NAPCON.COM PH: (315) 682-5580 FAX: (315) 682-5544 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, P.C. SITE DESIGN ENGINEERING PREPARED FOR: PROJECT LOCATION TITLE SHEET C-1 GENERAL NOTES C-2 SITE PLAN C-3 SITE PLAN C-4 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C-5 UTILITY PLAN C-6 SITE DETAILS C-7 THRU C-9 PROJECT LOCATION RAY ENERGY RAIL TERMINAL 3893 US ROUTE 11 TOWN OF CORTLANDVILLE CORTLAND COUNTY NEW YORK AERIAL MAP PROJECT LOCATION U S R O U T E 1 1 I N T E R S T A T E 8 1 W E A V E R R O A D 2794 SEVENTH AVENUE TROY, NY 12180 U S R O U T E 1 1 GENERAL NOTES GRADING NOTES UTILITY NOTES LEGEND: PROPOSED LANDSCAPE NOTES l l l PR O J E C T N O . DA T E SC A L E SH E E T RO D N E Y C I V E S , J R . , P . E . NY S R E G I S T R A T I O N # 0 7 7 8 4 2 PL A N S E A L B Y : PR E P A R E D B Y : CO P Y R I G H T C 2 0 2 2 NO . RE V I S I O N / I S S U E SH E E T T I T L E : DA T E PR E P A R E D F O R : PR O J E C T T I T L E : 11 0 F AY E T T E STR E E T MAN L I U S , NEW YOR K 13 1 0 4 em a i l : MN A P @ N A P C O N . C O M PH : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 8 0 FA X : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 4 4 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P . C . SI T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R I N G IT I S A V I O L A T I O N O F L A W F O R A N Y PE R S O N , U N L E S S A C T I N G U N D E R T H E DI R E C T I O N O F A L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T , PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , L A N D S C A P E AR C H I T E C T , O R L A N D S U R V E Y O R T O AL T E R A N Y I T E M O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I N AN Y W A Y . AN Y L I C E N S E E W H O A L T E R S T H I S DO C U M E N T I S R E Q U I R E D B Y L A W T O A F F I X HI S O R H E R S E A L A N D T H E N O T A T I O N "A L T E R E D B Y " F O L L O W E D B Y H I S O R H E R SI G N A T U R E A N D S P E C I F I C D E S C R I P T I O N OF T H E A L T E R A T I O N S . NA P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P C RA Y E N E R G Y T E R M I N A L 38 9 3 U S R O U T E 1 1 TO W N O F C O R T L A N D V I L L E CO R T L A N D C O U N T Y , N E W Y O R K RA Y E N E R G Y C O R P 27 9 4 S E V E N T H A V E N U E TR O Y , N Y 1 2 1 8 0 GE N E R A L N O T E S 21 - 2 0 4 6 03 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 2 C- 2 N 85°09'31" W 935.77' (M) Site Benchmark No. 4 Elevation 1096.71 Site Benchmark No. 5 Elevation 1097.04 Site Benchmark No. 3 Elevation 1096.67 1/2 inch Rebar Capped "D+G PLS 50397" (Held) 1/2 inch Rebar (Held) 936.91' (D) S 74° 1 8 ' 4 8 " E N 0 0 ° 5 2 ' 5 9 " W 401.9 7 ' ( D ) 401.9 3 ' ( M ) Ed g e o f G r a v e l Site Benchmark No.2 Elevation 1099.50 1/2 inch Rebar (Held) S 80°48'2 5 " E N 0 0 ° 4 9 ' 3 0 " W 16 4 . 6 5 ' ( M ) 56 4 . 5 5 ' ( D ) 78 7 . 7 8 ' ( M ) S 74° 1 1 ' 1 1 " E 500.0 2 ' ( M ) 500.0 0 ' ( D ) 78 6 . 2 6 ' ( D ) 57 0 . 9 1 ' ( M ) Chai n L i n k F e n c e S 0 0 ° 4 9 ' 3 0 " E 16 4 . 6 5 ' ( D ) 1/2 inch Rebar Capped "D+G PLS 50397" (Held) 78 7 . 7 8 ' ( M ) Found 1/2-inch Rebar with a plastic cap marked "D+G PLS 50397" (Held) Found 1/2 inch Rebar (Held) S 0 0 ° 4 3 ' 5 3 " E 21 0 . 7 4 ' ( M ) 401.9 3 ' ( M ) S 0 0 ° 4 1 ' 1 4 " E 19 5 . 4 7 ' ( D ) 401.9 7 ' ( D ) 21 0 . 9 9 ' ( D ) 20 0 . 7 8 ' ( M ) N 74° 1 8 ' 4 8 " W Site Benchmark No. 6 Elevation 1099.10 Site Benchmark No. 7 Elevation 1100.29 Property of Suit - Kote Corporation Liber 404 - Page 311 Tax Parcel No. 97.00-01-04 N 90°00'00" E right-of-way reserved for far m u s e , f o r t h e p u r p o s e on ingress and egress, a s d e s c r i b e d i n a conveyance from Glenn R. a n d A l i c e J . A l e x a n d e r t o William L. and Muriel Die s c h e r b y d e e d d a t e d A p r i l 6, 1956 and recorded on A p r i l 6 , 1 9 5 6 i n t h e Cortland County Clerk's O f f i c e i n L i b e r 2 4 2 o f D e e d s at Page 290. 20' Now or Formerly S 0 0 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 23 . 6 5 ' ( M ) Culvert Extension Easement to be Granted by Suit - Kote Corporation to Empire Agrifuels, LLC Contains 0.016 Acres Northerly Bounds of Form e r N e w Y o r k , S u s q u e h a n n a a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d 27.78' (M) 391.71' ( M ) 391.84' (D ) Site Benchmark No. 9 Elevation 1108.42 ch o r d : N 0 9 ° 4 6 ' 0 7 " E 91 4 . 2 1 ' ( M ) l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l Sanitary Manhole Rim Elev. 1118.55 TEL R Centerli n e o f U S R o u t e 1 1 ( 6 6 - f o o t w i d t h ) Ed g e o f G r a v e l Ch a i n L i n k F e n c e Chain L i n k F e n c e Sanitary Manhole Rim Elev. 1113.65 Northerl y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 Southe r l y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 Edge of P a v e m e n t Edge of P a v e m e n t S 0 0 ° 4 9 ' 3 0 " E Northe r l y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 Southe r l y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 78 7 . 7 8 ' ( M ) Dir t / G r a v e l R o a d Now or FormerlyProperty ofCortland County Industrial Development Ag e n c y Instrument No. 2001-1222Tax Parcel No. 87-3-21.1 Property ofSuit - Kote CorporationLiber 404 - Page 311Tax Parcel No. 97.00-01-04 Property ofDavid W. and Lori A. LawInstrument No. 1996-1326Tax Parcel No. 87.00-04-04 Cent e r o f C r e e k Northerly Bounds of Former New York, Susqueha n n a a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d Point of Beginning0.016-Acre EasementNorthing: 944,674.3'Easting: 938,141.8' chord : N 0 5 ° 5 7 ' 0 7 " E 17.77 ' ( M ) 17.8 ' ± ( M ) Culvert Extension Easementto be Granted byDavid W. and Lori A. Law toEmpire Agrifuels, LLCContains 0.016 Acres N 90°00'00" E 29.1'± (M) S 00 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 20.7 5 ( M ) right-of-way reserved for farm use, for the purposeon ingress and egress, as described in aconveyance from Glenn R. and Alice J. Alexander toWilliam L. and Muriel Diescher by deed dated Apr i l6, 1956 and recorded on April 6, 1956 in theCortland County Clerk's Office in Liber 242 of Deedsat Page 290. Exist i n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Culv e r t Exis t i n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Culve r t Existi n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Culv e r t Existing Railroad 20' Prop e r t y o f Mar g e r y B . A l e x a n d e r to b e C o n v e y e d t o Suit - K o t e C o r p o r a t i o n N 85°09'31" W N 85°09'31" W 36.5'± (M) Now or Formerly S 00 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 23. 6 5 ' ( M ) 17.8 ' ± ( M ) chord : S 0 5 ° 5 7 ' 0 7 " W 17.7 7 ' ( M ) Culvert Extension Easementto be Granted bySuit - Kote Corporation toEmpire Agrifuels, LLCContains 0.016 Acres Point of Beginning0.016-Acre EasementNorthing: 944,674.3'Easting: 938,141.8' Northerly Bounds of Former New York, Susqueha n n a a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d S 02 ° 5 5 ' 3 1 " E 8.33 ' ( M ) N 85°09'31" W 27.78' (M) Northerly Bounds of Former New York, Susquehanna a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d N 90°00'00" E 34.5'± (M) Refer t o a c o n v e y a n c e f r o m S t u a r t B . a n d E d i t h S . A l e x a n d e r to C h a r l e s J . a n d M a r g e r y B . A l e x a n d e r b y d e e d d a t e d A p r i l 28, 19 5 6 a n d r e c o r d e d i n t h e C o r t l a n d C o u n t y C l e r k ' s O f f i c e i n Liber 2 4 2 o f d e e d s a t P a g e 2 9 8 Ce n t e r l i n e o f C r e e k ch o r d : N 0 9 ° 4 6 ' 0 7 " E 91 4 . 2 1 ' ( M ) ch o r d : S 0 9 ° 5 9 ' 4 1 " W 91 0 . 7 7 ' ( M ) PR O J E C T N O . DA T E SC A L E SH E E T RO D N E Y C I V E S , J R . , P . E . NY S R E G I S T R A T I O N # 0 7 7 8 4 2 PL A N S E A L B Y : PR E P A R E D B Y : CO P Y R I G H T C 2 0 2 2 NO . RE V I S I O N / I S S U E SH E E T T I T L E : DA T E PR E P A R E D F O R : PR O J E C T T I T L E : 11 0 F AY E T T E STR E E T MAN L I U S , NEW YOR K 13 1 0 4 em a i l : MN A P @ N A P C O N . C O M PH : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 8 0 FA X : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 4 4 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P . C . SI T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R I N G IT I S A V I O L A T I O N O F L A W F O R A N Y PE R S O N , U N L E S S A C T I N G U N D E R T H E DI R E C T I O N O F A L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T , PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , L A N D S C A P E AR C H I T E C T , O R L A N D S U R V E Y O R T O AL T E R A N Y I T E M O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I N AN Y W A Y . AN Y L I C E N S E E W H O A L T E R S T H I S DO C U M E N T I S R E Q U I R E D B Y L A W T O A F F I X HI S O R H E R S E A L A N D T H E N O T A T I O N "A L T E R E D B Y " F O L L O W E D B Y H I S O R H E R SI G N A T U R E A N D S P E C I F I C D E S C R I P T I O N OF T H E A L T E R A T I O N S . NA P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P C RA Y E N E R G Y T E R M I N A L 38 9 3 U S R O U T E 1 1 TO W N O F C O R T L A N D V I L L E CO R T L A N D C O U N T Y , N E W Y O R K RA Y E N E R G Y C O R P 27 9 4 S E V E N T H A V E N U E TR O Y , N Y 1 2 1 8 0 SI T E P L A N 21 - 2 0 4 6 03 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 2 1" = 4 0 ' C- 3 LAYOUT PLAN KEYED NOTES: M A T C H L I N E - S E E S H E E T C - 4 C - 3 C - 4 Sanitary Manhole Rim Elev. 1118.55 TEL R 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 4 1 1 0 5 1 1 0 6 1 1 0 7 11 0 8 110 9 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11 1 2 11 1 3 1 1 1 4 Now or Formerly Property of Suburban Propane, L.P. Instrument No. 2001-3172 Tax Parcel No. 87.00-04-02 Cente r l i n e o f U S R o u t e 1 1 ( 6 6 - f o o t w i d t h ) 1/2-inch Rebar (Disturbed) 60 2 . 3 2 ' ( M ) S 74° 3 9 ' 3 4 " E 70.57' ( M ) S 0 0 ° 4 9 ' 3 0 " E 70.57' ( D ) 60 0 . 0 0 ' ( D ) Ch a i n L i n k F e n c e Sanitary Manhole Rim Elev. 1113.65 North e r l y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 Sanitary Manhole Rim Elev. 1107.00 South e r l y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 1/2-inch Rebar (Held) Edge o f P a v e m e n t Edge o f P a v e m e n t North e r l y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 South e r l y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 Site Benchmark No.10 Elevation 1114.80 Set 5/8-inch Rebar with a 1 1/4-inch orange plastic cap marked "THEW BASELINE" Grid Northing: 945,744.015 Grid Easting: 937,621.230 Latitude: N 42°35'41.6532" Longitude: W 076°08'50.1716" Now or Formerly Property of Love/Frazee Associates, L.L.C. Instrument No. 1996-682 Tax Parcel No. 87.00-04-03 Set 5/8-inch Rebar with a 1 1/4-inch orange plastic cap marked "THEW BASELINE" Grid Northing: , rid Easting: , Latitude N ongitude W 0 20.22 South e r l y B o u n d s o f U S R o u t e 1 1 TEL R Now or FormerlyProperty ofCortland County Industrial Development Ag e n c y Instrument No. 2001-1222Tax Parcel No. 87-3-21.1 Property ofSuit - Kote CorporationLiber 404 - Page 311Tax Parcel No. 97.00-01-04 Property ofDavid W. and Lori A. LawInstrument No. 1996-1326Tax Parcel No. 87.00-04-04 Cent e r o f C r e e k Northerly Bounds of Former New York, Susqueha n n a a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d Point of Beginning0.016-Acre EasementNorthing: 944,674.3'Easting: 938,141.8' chord : N 0 5 ° 5 7 ' 0 7 " E 17.77 ' ( M ) 17.8 ' ± ( M ) Culvert Extension Easementto be Granted byDavid W. and Lori A. Law toEmpire Agrifuels, LLCContains 0.016 Acres N 90°00'00" E 29.1'± (M) S 00 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 20.7 5 ( M ) right-of-way reserved for farm use, for the purposeon ingress and egress, as described in aconveyance from Glenn R. and Alice J. Alexander toWilliam L. and Muriel Diescher by deed dated Apr i l6, 1956 and recorded on April 6, 1956 in theCortland County Clerk's Office in Liber 242 of Deedsat Page 290. Exist i n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Culv e r t Exis t i n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Culve r t Existi n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Culv e r t Existing Railroad 20' Prop e r t y o f Mar g e r y B . A l e x a n d e r to b e C o n v e y e d t o Suit - K o t e C o r p o r a t i o n N 85°09'31" W 36.5'± (M) Now or Formerly S 00 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 23. 6 5 ' ( M ) 17.8 ' ± ( M ) chord : S 0 5 ° 5 7 ' 0 7 " W 17.7 7 ' ( M ) Culvert Extension Easementto be Granted bySuit - Kote Corporation toEmpire Agrifuels, LLCContains 0.016 Acres Point of Beginning0.016-Acre EasementNorthing: 944,674.3'Easting: 938,141.8' Northerly Bounds of Former New York, Susqueha n n a a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d S 02 ° 5 5 ' 3 1 " E 8.33 ' ( M ) N 85°09'31" W 27.78' (M) Northerly Bounds of Former New York, Susquehanna a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d N 90°00'00" E 34.5'± (M) Refer t o a c o n v e y a n c e f r o m S t u a r t B . a n d E d i t h S . A l e x a n d e r to C h a r l e s J . a n d M a r g e r y B . A l e x a n d e r b y d e e d d a t e d A p r i l 28, 19 5 6 a n d r e c o r d e d i n t h e C o r t l a n d C o u n t y C l e r k ' s O f f i c e i n Liber 2 4 2 o f d e e d s a t P a g e 2 9 8 20-foot right-of-way for farm use, granted by Glenn R. Alexander and Alice J. Alexander to William L. Diescher and Muriel Diescher, for the purpose of ingress and egress, as described in a conveyance from Glenn R. Alexander and Alice J. Alexander to William L. Diescher and Muriel Diescher by deed dated April 6, 1956 and recorded April 6, 1956 in the Cortland County Clerk's Office in Liber 242 Page 290. PR O J E C T N O . DA T E SC A L E SH E E T RO D N E Y C I V E S , J R . , P . E . NY S R E G I S T R A T I O N # 0 7 7 8 4 2 PL A N S E A L B Y : PR E P A R E D B Y : CO P Y R I G H T C 2 0 2 2 NO . RE V I S I O N / I S S U E SH E E T T I T L E : DA T E PR E P A R E D F O R : PR O J E C T T I T L E : 11 0 F AY E T T E STR E E T MAN L I U S , NEW YOR K 13 1 0 4 em a i l : MN A P @ N A P C O N . C O M PH : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 8 0 FA X : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 4 4 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P . C . SI T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R I N G IT I S A V I O L A T I O N O F L A W F O R A N Y PE R S O N , U N L E S S A C T I N G U N D E R T H E DI R E C T I O N O F A L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T , PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , L A N D S C A P E AR C H I T E C T , O R L A N D S U R V E Y O R T O AL T E R A N Y I T E M O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I N AN Y W A Y . AN Y L I C E N S E E W H O A L T E R S T H I S DO C U M E N T I S R E Q U I R E D B Y L A W T O A F F I X HI S O R H E R S E A L A N D T H E N O T A T I O N "A L T E R E D B Y " F O L L O W E D B Y H I S O R H E R SI G N A T U R E A N D S P E C I F I C D E S C R I P T I O N OF T H E A L T E R A T I O N S . NA P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P C RA Y E N E R G Y T E R M I N A L 38 9 3 U S R O U T E 1 1 TO W N O F C O R T L A N D V I L L E CO R T L A N D C O U N T Y , N E W Y O R K RA Y E N E R G Y C O R P 27 9 4 S E V E N T H A V E N U E TR O Y , N Y 1 2 1 8 0 SI T E P L A N 21 - 2 0 4 6 03 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 2 1" = 4 0 ' C- 4 M A T C H L I N E - S E E S H E E T C - 3 C - 4 C - 3 1097 Now or Formerly Property of Cortland County Industrial Development Agency Instrument No. 2001-1222 Tax Parcel No. 87-3-21.1 N 85°09'31" W 935.77' (M) 1 0 9 4 1095 1 0 9 5 Now or Formerly Property of Patrick Johnson Instrument No. 1059753-001 Tax Parcel No. 87.00-05-16.11 936.91' (D) S 74° 1 8 ' 4 8 " E N 0 0 ° 5 2 ' 5 9 " W 401.9 7 ' ( D ) 401.9 3 ' ( M ) 109 6 1096 1096 1 0 9 6 110 1 1 1 0 2 Now or Formerly Property of Marvin Windows of N.Y., INC. Liber 482 - Page 76 Tax Parcel No. 87.00-04-01 Now or Formerly Property of Love/Frazee Associates, L.L.C. Instrument No. 1996-682 Tax Parcel No. 87.00-04-03 Ed g e o f G r a v e l S 80°48'2 5 " E N 0 0 ° 4 9 ' 3 0 " W 16 4 . 6 5 ' ( M ) 56 4 . 5 5 ' ( D ) 78 7 . 7 8 ' ( M ) S 74° 1 1 ' 1 1 " E 500.0 2 ' ( M ) 500.0 0 ' ( D ) 78 6 . 2 6 ' ( D ) 57 0 . 9 1 ' ( M ) Chai n L i n k F e n c e S 0 0 ° 4 9 ' 3 0 " E 16 4 . 6 5 ' ( D ) Now or Formerly Property of Suburban Propane, L.P. Instrument No. 2001-3172 Tax Parcel No. 87.00-04-02 78 7 . 7 8 ' ( M ) 10 9 5 10 9 6 10 9 7 1097 1097 1 0 9 8 1098 1098 1098 1099 Now or Formerly Property of Suite - Kote Corporation Liber 404 Page 311 Tax Parcel No. 97.00-01-04 Wooden Foot Bridge Di r t / G r a v e l R o a d S 0 0 ° 4 3 ' 5 3 " E 21 0 . 7 4 ' ( M ) 401.9 3 ' ( M ) S 0 0 ° 4 1 ' 1 4 " E 19 5 . 4 7 ' ( D ) 401.9 7 ' ( D ) 21 0 . 9 9 ' ( D ) 20 0 . 7 8 ' ( M ) N 74° 1 8 ' 4 8 " W Now or Formerly Property ofCortland County Indust r i a l D e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y Instrument No. 2001- 1 2 2 2 Tax Parcel No. 87-3- 2 1 . 1 Property of Suit - Kote Corporation Liber 404 - Page 311 Tax Parcel No. 97.00-01-04 Property of David W. and Lori A. Law Instrument No. 1996-1326 Tax Parcel No. 87.00-04-04 Ce n t e r o f C r e e k Northerly Bounds of F o r m e r N e w Y o r k , S u s q u e h a n n a a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d Point of Beginning 0.016-Acre Easement Northing: 944,674.3' Easting: 938,141.8' ch o r d : N 0 5 ° 5 7 ' 0 7 " E 17 . 7 7 ' ( M ) 17 . 8 ' ± ( M ) Culvert Extension Easement to be Granted by David W. and Lori A. Law to Empire Agrifuels, LLC Contains 0.016 Acres N 90°00'00" E 29.1'± (M) S 0 0 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 20 . 7 5 ( M ) right-of-way reserved for f a r m u s e , f o r t h e p u r p o s e on ingress and egress, as d e s c r i b e d i n a conveyance from Glenn R . a n d A l i c e J . A l e x a n d e r t o William L. and Muriel Diesc h e r b y d e e d d a t e d A p r i l 6, 1956 and recorded on A p r i l 6 , 1 9 5 6 i n t h e Cortland County Clerk's Off i c e i n L i b e r 2 4 2 o f D e e d s at Page 290. Ex i s t i n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Cu l v e r t Ex i s t i n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Cu l v e r t Ex i s t i n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Cu l v e r t Existing Railroad 20' Pr o p e r t y o f Ma r g e r y B . A l e x a n d e r to b e C o n v e y e d t o Su i t - K o t e C o r p o r a t i o n N 85°09'31" W 16.9'± (M) N 85°09'31" W 36.5'± (M) Now or Formerly S 0 0 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 23 . 6 5 ' ( M ) 17 . 8 ' ± ( M ) ch o r d : S 0 5 ° 5 7 ' 0 7 " W 17 . 7 7 ' ( M ) Culvert Extension Easement to be Granted by Suit - Kote Corporation to Empire Agrifuels, LLC Contains 0.016 Acres Point of Beginning 0.016-Acre Easement Northing: 944,674.3' Easting: 938,141.8' Northerly Bounds of For m e r N e w Y o r k , S u s q u e h a n n a a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d S 0 2 ° 5 5 ' 3 1 " E 8. 3 3 ' ( M ) N 85°09'31" W 27.78' (M) Northerly Bounds of Form e r N e w Y o r k , S u s q u e h a n n a a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d N 90°00'00" E 34.5'± (M) Re f e r t o a c o n v e y a n c e f r o m S t u a r t B . a n d E d i t h S . A l e x a n d e r to C h a r l e s J . a n d M a r g e r y B . A l e x a n d e r b y d e e d d a t e d A p r i l 28 , 1 9 5 6 a n d r e c o r d e d i n t h e C o r t l a n d C o u n t y C l e r k ' s O f f i c e i n Lib e r 2 4 2 o f d e e d s a t P a g e 2 9 8 1101 1 1 0 1 110 2 11 0 2 110 3 1 1 0 3 1104 1 1 0 4 1 1 0 5 110 5 1 1 0 6 1 1 0 6 1 1 0 7 1 1 0 7 1 1 0 8 Ce n t e r l i n e o f C r e e k 391.71' (M ) 20-foot right-of-way for farm use, granted by Glenn R. Alexander and Alice J. Alexander to William L. Diescher and Muriel Diescher, for the purpose of ingress and egress, as described in a conveyance from Glenn R. Alexander and Alice J. Alexander to William L. Diescher and Muriel Diescher by deed dated April 6, 1956 and recorded April 6, 1956 in the Cortland County Clerk's Office in Liber 242 Page 290. 391.84' (D ) ch o r d : N 0 9 ° 4 6 ' 0 7 " E 91 4 . 2 1 ' ( M ) ch o r d : S 0 9 ° 5 9 ' 4 1 " W 91 0 . 7 7 ' ( M ) 1097 1097 1097 1097 10 9 8 1098 1098 10 9 8 1 0 9 8 1098 1 0 9 8 109 9 1 0 9 9 1 0 9 9 1 0 9 9 11 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l GRADING PLAN LEGEND PR O J E C T N O . DA T E SC A L E SH E E T RO D N E Y C I V E S , J R . , P . E . NY S R E G I S T R A T I O N # 0 7 7 8 4 2 PL A N S E A L B Y : PR E P A R E D B Y : CO P Y R I G H T C 2 0 2 2 NO . RE V I S I O N / I S S U E SH E E T T I T L E : DA T E PR E P A R E D F O R : PR O J E C T T I T L E : 11 0 F AY E T T E STR E E T MAN L I U S , NEW YOR K 13 1 0 4 em a i l : MN A P @ N A P C O N . C O M PH : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 8 0 FA X : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 4 4 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P . C . SI T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R I N G IT I S A V I O L A T I O N O F L A W F O R A N Y PE R S O N , U N L E S S A C T I N G U N D E R T H E DI R E C T I O N O F A L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T , PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , L A N D S C A P E AR C H I T E C T , O R L A N D S U R V E Y O R T O AL T E R A N Y I T E M O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I N AN Y W A Y . AN Y L I C E N S E E W H O A L T E R S T H I S DO C U M E N T I S R E Q U I R E D B Y L A W T O A F F I X HI S O R H E R S E A L A N D T H E N O T A T I O N "A L T E R E D B Y " F O L L O W E D B Y H I S O R H E R SI G N A T U R E A N D S P E C I F I C D E S C R I P T I O N OF T H E A L T E R A T I O N S . NA P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P C RA Y E N E R G Y T E R M I N A L 38 9 3 U S R O U T E 1 1 TO W N O F C O R T L A N D V I L L E CO R T L A N D C O U N T Y , N E W Y O R K RA Y E N E R G Y C O R P 27 9 4 S E V E N T H A V E N U E TR O Y , N Y 1 2 1 8 0 GR A D I N G P L A N 21 - 2 0 4 6 03 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 2 1" = 4 0 ' C- 5 Site Benchmark No. 4 Elevation 1096.71 Site Benchmark No. 5 Elevation 1097.04 Sanitary Manhole Rim Elev. 1118.55 NM 8 Site Benchmark No. 3 Elevation 1096.67 1/2 inch Rebar Capped "D+G PLS 50397" (Held) 1/2 inch Rebar (Held) TEL R Cente r l i n e o f U S R o u t e 1 1 ( 6 6 - f o o t w i d t h ) Ed g e o f G r a v e l Site Benchmark No.2 Elevation 1099.50 1/2-inch Rebar (Disturbed) 1/2 inch Rebar (Held) Ch a i n L i n k F e n c e Chai n L i n k F e n c e Sanitary Manhole Rim Elev. 1113.65 North e r l y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 Sanitary Manhole Rim Elev. 1107.00 South e r l y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 1/2-inch Rebar (Held) Edge o f P a v e m e n t Edge o f P a v e m e n t S 0 0 ° 4 9 ' 3 0 " E North e r l y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 South e r l y R i g h t - o f - W a y o f U S R o u t e 1 1 Site Benchmark No.10 Elevation 1114.80 Set 5/8-inch Rebar with a 1 1/4-inch orange plastic cap marked "THEW BASELINE" Grid Northing: 945,744.015 Grid Easting: 937,621.230 Latitude: N 42°35'41.6532" Longitude: W 076°08'50.1716" 1/2 inch Rebar Capped "D+G PLS 50397" (Held) 78 7 . 7 8 ' ( M ) Wooden Foot Bridge Di r t / G r a v e l R o a d Site Benchmark No.8 Elevation 1107.37 Found 1/2-inch Rebar with a plastic cap marked "D+G PLS 50397" (Held) Found 1/2 inch Rebar (Held) Site Benchmark No. 6 Elevation 1099.10 Site Benchmark No. 7 Elevation 1100.29 Now or Formerly Property of Suit - Kote Corporation Liber 404 - Page 311 Tax Parcel No. 97.00-01-04 Property of David W. and Lori A. Law Instrument No. 1996-1326 Tax Parcel No. 87.00-04-04 Ce n t e r o f C r e e k Northerly Bounds of Form e r N e w Y o r k , S u s q u e h a n n a a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d Point of Beginning 0.016-Acre Easement Northing: 944,674.3' Easting: 938,141.8' ch o r d : N 0 5 ° 5 7 ' 0 7 " E 17 . 7 7 ' ( M ) 17 . 8 ' ± ( M ) Culvert Extension Easement to be Granted by David W. and Lori A. Law to Empire Agrifuels, LLC Contains 0.016 Acres N 90°00'00" E 29.1'± (M) S 0 0 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 20 . 7 5 ( M ) right-of-way reserved for farm u s e , f o r t h e p u r p o s e on ingress and egress, as descr i b e d i n a conveyance from Glenn R. and A l i c e J . A l e x a n d e r t o William L. and Muriel Diescher b y d e e d d a t e d A p r i l 6, 1956 and recorded on April 6 , 1 9 5 6 i n t h e Cortland County Clerk's Office i n L i b e r 2 4 2 o f D e e d s at Page 290. Ex i s t i n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Cu l v e r t Ex i s t i n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Cu l v e r t Ex i s t i n g 4 8 - i n c h C M P Cu l v e r t 20' Pr o p e r t y o f Ma r g e r y B . A l e x a n d e r to b e C o n v e y e d t o Su i t - K o t e C o r p o r a t i o n N 85°09'31" W 36.5'± (M) Now or Formerly S 0 0 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 23 . 6 5 ' ( M ) 17 . 8 ' ± ( M ) ch o r d : S 0 5 ° 5 7 ' 0 7 " W 17 . 7 7 ' ( M ) Culvert Extension Easement to be Granted by Suit - Kote Corporation to Empire Agrifuels, LLC Contains 0.016 Acres Point of Beginning 0.016-Acre Easement Northing: 944,674.3' Easting: 938,141.8' Northerly Bounds of Former N e w Y o r k , S u s q u e h a n n a a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d S 0 2 ° 5 5 ' 3 1 " E 8. 3 3 ' ( M ) N 85°09'31" W 27.78' (M) Northerly Bounds of Forme r N e w Y o r k , S u s q u e h a n n a a n d W e s t e r n R a i l r o a d N 90°00'00" E 34.5'± (M) Re f e r t o a c o n v e y a n c e f r o m S t u a r t B . a n d E d i t h S . A l e x a n d e r to C h a r l e s J . a n d M a r g e r y B . A l e x a n d e r b y d e e d d a t e d A p r i l 28 , 1 9 5 6 a n d r e c o r d e d i n t h e C o r t l a n d C o u n t y C l e r k ' s O f f i c e i n Lib e r 2 4 2 o f d e e d s a t P a g e 2 9 8 Ce n t e r l i n e o f C r e e k Set 5/8-inch Rebar with a 1 1/4-inch orange plastic cap marked "THEW BASELINE" Grid Northing: , rid Easting: , Latitude N ongitude W 0 20.22 Site Benchmark No. 9 Elevation 1108.42 S 74°39'34" E 20.6'± (M) ch o r d : N 0 9 ° 4 6 ' 0 7 " E 91 4 . 2 1 ' ( M ) ch o r d : S 0 9 ° 5 9 ' 4 1 " W 91 0 . 7 7 ' ( M ) l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l PR O J E C T N O . DA T E SC A L E SH E E T RO D N E Y C I V E S , J R . , P . E . NY S R E G I S T R A T I O N # 0 7 7 8 4 2 PL A N S E A L B Y : PR E P A R E D B Y : CO P Y R I G H T C 2 0 2 2 NO . RE V I S I O N / I S S U E SH E E T T I T L E : DA T E PR E P A R E D F O R : PR O J E C T T I T L E : 11 0 F AY E T T E STR E E T MAN L I U S , NEW YOR K 13 1 0 4 em a i l : MN A P @ N A P C O N . C O M PH : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 8 0 FA X : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 4 4 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P . C . SI T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R I N G IT I S A V I O L A T I O N O F L A W F O R A N Y PE R S O N , U N L E S S A C T I N G U N D E R T H E DI R E C T I O N O F A L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T , PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , L A N D S C A P E AR C H I T E C T , O R L A N D S U R V E Y O R T O AL T E R A N Y I T E M O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I N AN Y W A Y . AN Y L I C E N S E E W H O A L T E R S T H I S DO C U M E N T I S R E Q U I R E D B Y L A W T O A F F I X HI S O R H E R S E A L A N D T H E N O T A T I O N "A L T E R E D B Y " F O L L O W E D B Y H I S O R H E R SI G N A T U R E A N D S P E C I F I C D E S C R I P T I O N OF T H E A L T E R A T I O N S . NA P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P C RA Y E N E R G Y T E R M I N A L 38 9 3 U S R O U T E 1 1 TO W N O F C O R T L A N D V I L L E CO R T L A N D C O U N T Y , N E W Y O R K RA Y E N E R G Y C O R P 27 9 4 S E V E N T H A V E N U E TR O Y , N Y 1 2 1 8 0 UT I L I T Y P L A N 21 - 2 0 4 6 03 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 2 1" = 6 0 ' C- 6 HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT SECTION CONCRETE SIDEWALK ACCESSIBLE PARKING PAVEMENT MARKING DETAIL ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNS CONCRETE PIPE BOLLARD GRAVEL DRIVEWAY/ACCESS WAY ”” ””” CONCRETE PAD EDGE OF PAVEMENT TRANSITION TO GRASS AREA CHAIN LINK PERIMETER FENCE PR O J E C T N O . DA T E SC A L E SH E E T RO D N E Y C I V E S , J R . , P . E . NY S R E G I S T R A T I O N # 0 7 7 8 4 2 PL A N S E A L B Y : PR E P A R E D B Y : CO P Y R I G H T C 2 0 2 2 NO . RE V I S I O N / I S S U E SH E E T T I T L E : DA T E PR E P A R E D F O R : PR O J E C T T I T L E : 11 0 F AY E T T E STR E E T MAN L I U S , NEW YOR K 13 1 0 4 em a i l : MN A P @ N A P C O N . C O M PH : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 8 0 FA X : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 4 4 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P . C . SI T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R I N G IT I S A V I O L A T I O N O F L A W F O R A N Y PE R S O N , U N L E S S A C T I N G U N D E R T H E DI R E C T I O N O F A L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T , PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , L A N D S C A P E AR C H I T E C T , O R L A N D S U R V E Y O R T O AL T E R A N Y I T E M O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I N AN Y W A Y . AN Y L I C E N S E E W H O A L T E R S T H I S DO C U M E N T I S R E Q U I R E D B Y L A W T O A F F I X HI S O R H E R S E A L A N D T H E N O T A T I O N "A L T E R E D B Y " F O L L O W E D B Y H I S O R H E R SI G N A T U R E A N D S P E C I F I C D E S C R I P T I O N OF T H E A L T E R A T I O N S . NA P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P C RA Y E N E R G Y T E R M I N A L 38 9 3 U S R O U T E 1 1 TO W N O F C O R T L A N D V I L L E CO R T L A N D C O U N T Y , N E W Y O R K RA Y E N E R G Y C O R P 27 9 4 S E V E N T H A V E N U E TR O Y , N Y 1 2 1 8 0 SI T E D E T A I L S 21 - 2 0 4 6 03 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 2 C- 7 LIGHT POLE ELEVATION LIGHT POLE BASE TYPICAL HYDRANT INSTALLATION TAPPING SLEEVE AND VALVE TYPICAL WATER CEMENT LINED DUCTILE IRON PIPE TRENCH FORCE MAIN CLEANOUT TYPICAL SANITARY PUMP STATION PR O J E C T N O . DA T E SC A L E SH E E T RO D N E Y C I V E S , J R . , P . E . NY S R E G I S T R A T I O N # 0 7 7 8 4 2 PL A N S E A L B Y : PR E P A R E D B Y : CO P Y R I G H T C 2 0 2 2 NO . RE V I S I O N / I S S U E SH E E T T I T L E : DA T E PR E P A R E D F O R : PR O J E C T T I T L E : 11 0 F AY E T T E STR E E T MAN L I U S , NEW YOR K 13 1 0 4 em a i l : MN A P @ N A P C O N . C O M PH : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 8 0 FA X : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 4 4 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P . C . SI T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R I N G IT I S A V I O L A T I O N O F L A W F O R A N Y PE R S O N , U N L E S S A C T I N G U N D E R T H E DI R E C T I O N O F A L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T , PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , L A N D S C A P E AR C H I T E C T , O R L A N D S U R V E Y O R T O AL T E R A N Y I T E M O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I N AN Y W A Y . AN Y L I C E N S E E W H O A L T E R S T H I S DO C U M E N T I S R E Q U I R E D B Y L A W T O A F F I X HI S O R H E R S E A L A N D T H E N O T A T I O N "A L T E R E D B Y " F O L L O W E D B Y H I S O R H E R SI G N A T U R E A N D S P E C I F I C D E S C R I P T I O N OF T H E A L T E R A T I O N S . NA P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P C RA Y E N E R G Y T E R M I N A L 38 9 3 U S R O U T E 1 1 TO W N O F C O R T L A N D V I L L E CO R T L A N D C O U N T Y , N E W Y O R K RA Y E N E R G Y C O R P 27 9 4 S E V E N T H A V E N U E TR O Y , N Y 1 2 1 8 0 SI T E D E T A I L S 21 - 2 0 4 6 03 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 2 C- 8 SILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EROSION CONTROL NOTES CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA PR O J E C T N O . DA T E SC A L E SH E E T RO D N E Y C I V E S , J R . , P . E . NY S R E G I S T R A T I O N # 0 7 7 8 4 2 PL A N S E A L B Y : PR E P A R E D B Y : CO P Y R I G H T C 2 0 2 2 NO . RE V I S I O N / I S S U E SH E E T T I T L E : DA T E PR E P A R E D F O R : PR O J E C T T I T L E : 11 0 F AY E T T E STR E E T MAN L I U S , NEW YOR K 13 1 0 4 em a i l : MN A P @ N A P C O N . C O M PH : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 8 0 FA X : (3 1 5 ) 6 8 2 - 5 5 4 4 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P . C . SI T E D E S I G N E N G I N E E R I N G IT I S A V I O L A T I O N O F L A W F O R A N Y PE R S O N , U N L E S S A C T I N G U N D E R T H E DI R E C T I O N O F A L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T , PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , L A N D S C A P E AR C H I T E C T , O R L A N D S U R V E Y O R T O AL T E R A N Y I T E M O N T H I S D O C U M E N T I N AN Y W A Y . AN Y L I C E N S E E W H O A L T E R S T H I S DO C U M E N T I S R E Q U I R E D B Y L A W T O A F F I X HI S O R H E R S E A L A N D T H E N O T A T I O N "A L T E R E D B Y " F O L L O W E D B Y H I S O R H E R SI G N A T U R E A N D S P E C I F I C D E S C R I P T I O N OF T H E A L T E R A T I O N S . NA P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R , P C RA Y E N E R G Y T E R M I N A L 38 9 3 U S R O U T E 1 1 TO W N O F C O R T L A N D V I L L E CO R T L A N D C O U N T Y , N E W Y O R K RA Y E N E R G Y C O R P 27 9 4 S E V E N T H A V E N U E TR O Y , N Y 1 2 1 8 0 SI T E D E T A I L S 21 - 2 0 4 6 03 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 2 C- 9 Cortlandville Fire District MXr It 5' za 999 State Route 13, Cortland, NY 13045� Phone: (607) 753-9014 '4ACK DAWGS Email: commissionerminutes@cortlandvillefire.org March 2"d, 2022 Mr. Chris Newell Cortlandville Planning Board Chairman 4446 Cosmos Hill Road Cortland, NY 13045 Dear Chairman Newell, This communication is in regards to the proposed rail -supplied propane terminal to be located in the Town of Cortlandville at 3893 Route 11. We are not sure what stage this proposal is at but the Cortlandville Fire District wants to make sure a hydrant(s) are part of the requirements for approval to be achieved. This request has become even more prevalent since the fire at Suit-Kote. That fire required us to lay out three thousand feet of five -inch hose from the hydrant located on Route 11. The average amount of hose that each fire department engine carries on it is one thousand feet. In order for us to fight the fire at Suit-Kote, it required three engines to lay the hose in. We then needed one of those pumpers to return to the hydrant on Route 11, plug into it so that we could boost the pressure to the attack engine at the site of the fire. This was a very time consuming process. We are in talks with Suit-Kote now to determine ways to increase fire protection to their facility. We are very excited about the growth that seems to be coming back to Cortlandville and we want to partner with that growth while making sure safety measures are put in place to protect the users and emergency responders of all proposals. With all this said, we are requesting a hydrant line be extended from Route 11 to the proposed propane terminal facility with hydrant(s) placed on the grounds as deemed necessary by the Cortlandville Fire District prior to any approval being granted. We want to be clear we are not trying stall or increase costs to any developer or interfere with your processes but we need to make sure the necessary fire protective measures are in place so in the event a fire occurs we can quickly mitigate the situation. Please don't hesitate to contact me regarding this communication. Sincerely, Gere Henry Chief of Department 607 745-3367 Cc: Supervisor Tom Williams Planning / Zoning Officer Bruce Weber County Director of Planning Trisha Jesset