I was told that PSI doesn’t like BZB extractors or the creator of the company.
If you have a BZB extractor that you want certified steer clear.
1 Like
Easy through @3PCertz
7 Likes
Did they say specifically what concerned them? A little more background info would be great.
My understanding is that bzb sells certified equipment and parts, and I haven’t heard of people having issues setting them up- being one of the more popular brands. I don’t have any skin in that game, but I am very curious as to your experience.
3 Likes
And I quote “extractors are dangerous, and Boris scoffs at the rules”
They want 400psi pressures relief valves on all non asme columns interpreting NFPA rule 58:1.65 as any non asme column under 6” as a pipe or tube that requires a prv because it’s considered a line with with valves on both ends that can trap lpg build to dangerous pressures. Even if the column has a prv set to 150 up to 350psi.
It’s a catch 22 Making it impossible to have a stock Bizzy extractor certified by them.
Of course they won’t let you in on that bit of info until you pay them the non refundable deposit.
2 Likes
Agreed, check out @3PCertz they can get it documented, modeled, and a PE report for almost any custom system.
1 Like
I would but they have already poisoned the company into thinking it’s dangerous.
Your PE may require changes to the system to address whatever issues they find. So expect to spend several thousand more on changes to satisfy your PE. It’s just how it goes to get them to put their stamp on an expensive stack of papers, meaning take some liability.
1 Like
they want the butane sight glasses to blow out before the PRV vents?
5 Likes
NOTE: NFPA #58 states, “Hydrostatic relief valves designed to relieve the hydrostatic pressure which might develop in sections of liquid piping between closed shutoff valves shall have pressure settings not less than 400 PSIG or more than 500 PSIG unless installed in systems designed to operate above 350 PSIG. Hydrostatic relief valves for use in systems designed to operate above 350 PSIG shall have settings not less that 110 percent or more than 125 percent of the system design pressure.”
Interesting…
The irony to me is that what they are specifically requesting seems dangerous.
They agree that the Bizzy tanks are asme but won’t allow the use of them without cut sheets from the Oem in china because it’s not good enough to take the dimensions yourself or just fill it with water to find the volume.
They don’t recognize ATEX CESI, LCIE, IECEX, CCOE, GOST “R”, Fsetan “R”, GGTN, YEAR “K”, .
any certification that isn’t on the osha list of NRTLs reluctantly accepts TUV. so that rules out anything European. As if Europe is some sort of third world county that doesn’t know what they are doing.
They don’t know the science behind how a chiller works, which isn’t a comment he literally told me so.
I have seen extractors they have certified with column’s that have welds on them that I wouldn’t use for whip cream let alone lpg.
The extractors wanted a company that would test the C1D1 HVAC system because the company has them working in a death trap the door opens inward for goodness sakes, and now they won’t even get that with PSI.
I guess so.
They don’t really want any sight glasses on the whole thing. Like if you have a system you rated to go down to -40 for your process and max out 150psi @ 140f and have a sight glass that’s Rated -20@150psi and 500@150psi it’s not approved for your system that goes down to -40 because they assume that you would be running @ 150psi @-40.
Don’t even try explaining that the system running at its process temperature would be well below 30 psi at the time.
1 Like
Honestly, its probably less about the engineering specs and more a personal matter. If I didn’t like someone enough, it wouldn’t be too hard to make up reasons why their systems are unsafe… especially when most equipment manufacturers are small businesses or startups.
And now comes the financial decisions. Did you already purchase equipment? If they feel committed to PSI for whatever reason, despite their personal beef costing you money, would they be open to a bigger budget so you can ensure safe operations?
Ultimately, BZB systems are being run all over the country. I’ve used one early on and it shits on the precisions I had used before them. Guess what, that shitty and far more dangerous precision I worked on was PSI certified. I didn’t see any glaring safety concerns with the BZB, assuming you run it with a trained operator and c1d1.
Seems like your company should have went through them from the start. BZB even states that they work with 3PCertz on their website, and don’t mention PSI at all… which again sounds personal.
2 Likes
I mean one conversation with Boris and its pretty obvious he scoffs at everything that isnt his idea.
9 Likes
Psi is a nightmare to work with. They wouldn’t even recertify the system they certified the previous year with no changes made to it despite no rules changing. They only give 1 year on their peer review despite the state saying it’s valid for 5. They won’t allow modifications to the peer review to give you the ability to make any changes. I could go on for hours but unless you get a perfect system right from the beginning and they certify that I truly feel using them is a death sentence for an extraction business.
8 Likes
I agree with everything you’ve said. As an OEM, I have had extensive conversations with all the known PE firms that service our industry, built my own PE firm, and know what the codes are and what it takes to put these reports together.
PSI is by far the least client friendly firm. They helped influence the writing of the code like requiring annual field inspections to create themselves annual recurring revenue. They also made it harder for competing PEs to provide services by requiring them to be pre approved by an AHJ even if they had experience from other industries. And every client I’ve warned about PSI and still stuck with using them have had to pay way more and waste more time on compliance than is actually necessary. They’ve been forced to loosen up and adapt more due to pressure from competitors because they’re no longer the only game in town and with ETS being their primary client, PSI will probably struggle because no one I know that’s been in this industry long enough likes to work with them. We work with 3pCertz mainly, but working on revamping our own compliance engineering firm to provide more client friendly PE services. If anyone needs compliance services from recertifications, upgrades, to field verifications and fire protection engineering reports, we can help at Xtractor Depot!
3 Likes
Just went through this for my facility , bro they hate em , go through 3pertz…..
They don’t even cert those sight glasses won’t pass em at all
1 Like
To be fair, the sightglasses are only rated for like, what, 150psi, or is it just 75psi? I don’t remember to be entirely honest.
I really don’t get why people shit on BZB. Boris was one of the innovators and one of the best in the industry back some years ago (probably at the time the very best) and I don’t know of anyone that actually had problem with his equipment failing. He may have come across a bit arrogant at times but let’s be honest, he is smart and helped Advance the industry. His equipment is still considered to be some of the very best you can get your hands on and I tend to believe that anyone who shits on him or the equipment has some sort of a personal gripe with him or the company and it has nothing to do with the actual quality of the equipment. Last time I spoke with Boris I think was maybe about 5 years ago and in all the years I have known him he was always a nice guy. Personally I think he’s a great guy.
Just my two cents worth.
150psi for the standard BZB sight glasses, 250psi for the high pressure (small windows).
6” OSS and other China sight glasses are typically 75psi, although OSS used to suggest not running them above 60psi IIRC.