mtlogcabin said:
Paid $1.84 3 weeks ago for 800 gallons. That price is based on 200 gallon minimum otherwise it is .50 cents a gallon more.. $4.99 is robbery
Hence the periodic propane association proposed fire code change to say you cannot fill some one else's tank.
F217–09/10
3806.1
Proponent: Bruce Swiecicki, National Propane Gas Association
Revise as follows:
3806.1 Attendants. Dispensing of LP-gas shall be performed by a qualified attendant. A container installed on site
shall only be filled by its owner or with the owner’s authorization.
Reason: The purpose of the proposed change is to require LP-gas containers to be filled only by the owner of the container or with the owner’s
permission. Prior to filling a stationary propane container (one that is installed on site), the container and system must undergo a visual inspection to
ensure they are suitable for continued service. It is common practice in the propane industry for ASME stationary containers to be leased to
customers, rather than sold to the customer. Because the propane marketer that owns the container is responsible for ensuring that it is in suitable
condition and safe to be continued in service, the proposed change will have a positive impact on the safe operation of stationary LP-gas systems.
From the earliest days of the compressed gas industry, a fundamental safety principle has been that cylinders may only be filled by the owner
or his designee. This industry safety requirement is predicated on the belief that only the owner knows how the container has been used or how it
will be used and is, therefore, accountable. Accountability is very important for safety. Accountability underpins industry practices, industry
standards, and state and federal laws and regulations, as will be demonstrated in this substantiation for the proposed change to the IFC.
From time to time, questions have arisen regarding this principle, asking whether such a restriction is necessary for safety, or whether it
constrains consumer choice. For example, in 1991 the Utah Attorney General issued a legal opinion that such a rule of the state propane regulatory
authority was a violation of the antitrust laws. However, the Utah Attorney General’s opinion was overturned when a U.S. District Court declared that
there was no antitrust violation. In addition, earlier in 1992, the Utah state legislature amended the Utah state propane law to add a specific
container law prohibition into the statutes so as to avoid any future challenges.