LASTFIRE

Large
Large Atmospheric
Atmospheric Storage
Storage Tank
Tank Fires
Fires

Summary/Update
November
November 2001
 Independent
0

Fire Hazard Management

Consultants
0
In-House Experience & Expertise
•Hands-on Emergency Incident Experience
•Fire Science Knowledge
•Fire Research
•Fire Systems Operational Knowledge
•Fire Systems Engineering
•International Standards Committee members
•Qualified Trainers
•Fire Effects Modelling
•Comprehensive Applications Expertise
•Process Knowledge
•QRA/HAZID/HAZOPs
•AutoCAD Capability/Hydraulic Calculations
•Emergency Exercise Management
Experience in more than
40 countries
Polar
Temperate

Desert Tropical
 LASTFIRE
Large
Large Atmospheric
Atmospheric Storage
Storage Tank
Tank Fires
Fires
LASTFIRE
PROJECT SPONSORS

Agip Petroli
OMV

BP
PetroFina

Conoco
Repsol

DEA
Saudi Aramco

Elf
Shell

Exxon
Total

MOL
Veba

Mobil
WRG
LASTFIRE PROJECT STRUCTURE
Sponsors’
Steering Group

Project External Information Sources

Co-ordinator
Operators
Tank Builders
Seal Manufacturers
Project Detection Suppliers
Working Group Protection Suppliers
Fire Fighters
Legislators
Insurers
LASTFIRE
OBJECTIVES

Determine current levels of risk

Establish Design & Operational
Practice & make knowledge available
throughout industry

Establish techniques to determine site-
specific levels of risk and identify
appropriate & cost-effective risk
reduction measures
 LASTFIRE
FIRE HAZARD MANAGEMENT
Evaluate Alternative Equipment Maintenance
Prevention, Protection Preplanning
Ignition Sources & Mitigation Measures
Exercises
Hazardous Materials Formalisation
Fire Training
Incident Descriptions Legislation
Update
Fire Compare Risk Define
Scenario Reduction FHM Implement
Analysis Options Policy

CONSEQUENCES
Life Safety
Environment FIRE ENGINEERING
Business Interruption FIRE MODELLING
Asset Value COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Other Issues

HAZOP DESIGN STANDARDS

QRA CODES OF PRACTICE
INCIDENT EXPERIENCE
LASTFIRE

BRAINSTORMING MEETINGS

Firefighters
Detection Suppliers

Tank Builders
Protection Suppliers

Seal
Extinguishant
Manufacturers Suppliers

Operators
Insurers

Risk Analysts
Legislators
 PROJECT DELIVERABLES
LASTFIRE
Foam
Review Direct input

Incident Indirect input

Frequency Risk
Survey Reduction
Options

Fire Compare Risk Define

Scenario Reduction FHM Implement
Analysis Options Policy

Escalation
Mechanism Risk Workbook
Analysis
LASTFIRE MAIN PROJECT CONCLUSIONS

Fires in open top floating roof tanks should

not represent major risk to life safety or the
environment if managed to preplanned
strategy
Most cost effective risk reduction is good
fire related inspection & maintenance
Prescriptive requirements cannot be
universally applied
Site specific risk based policies should be
developed
Slide 1 of 4
LASTFIRE MAIN PROJECT CONCLUSIONS

Fire incident probability & associated risk

is relatively low
Rimseal fires are most common scenario.
They are unlikely to escalate to full surface
fires in well maintained tanks
Lightning is most common ignition source
Correlations between rimseal fire
frequency & thunderstorm frequency have
been developed. Typical frequency for
-3
Northern Europe sites is 1x10 /tank year
Slide 2 of 4
LASTFIRE MAIN PROJECT CONCLUSIONS

Generic event frequencies for fires other

than rimseal fires are:-

Fire Type Frequency

Spill on roof 3x10-5/tank year
-5
Small bund fire 9x10 /tank year
-5
Large bund fire 6x10 /tank year
-5
Full surface fire 3x10 /tank year

Slide 3 of 4
LASTFIRE MAIN PROJECT CONCLUSIONS
Detailed design of detection & protection
systems is often incorrect due to lack of
operational experience in design houses
Incident response strategies must be developed
prior to incident with regular exercises &
training
FHM policies should be developed from site
specific analysis, but risk reduction options most
likely to be cost effective are:-
Secondary seals
Fire retardant rimseal material
Independent high-high alarm
Linear heat detection
Extended discharge rimseal foam system
Walkways allowing foam application by handlines Slide 4 of 4
FLOATING ROOF TANK FIRE SCENARIOS

Rimseal Fire Spill on Roof Fire

Full Surface Fire

Bund Fire Pontoon Explosion

 PROJECT DATABASE
LASTFIRE

 Data processed from 16 companies

 Completed questionnaires received from 164

sites in 36 countries

 Data from 2420 tanks >40m diameter in use

during 1981-1995

 Average age of tanks reviewed - 27.1 years

 Sample represented 33909 tank years of

operation
 SPILLS & INITIAL FIRE EVENTS
LASTFIRE

Loss of containment Initial Fire Event

Onto Sunken Into Rimseal Small Large Spill Full
LASTFIRE roof roof bund bund bund on roof surface

Number
of 55 37 96 55 3 2 1 1
Incidents

Frequency
-3
( x 10
1.6 1.1 2.8 1.6 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.03
/tank year )
 RIMSEAL FIRE IGNITION
LASTFIRE
SOURCES

Hot work on live tank

Not recorded
2
1

Lightning
52

Total = 55
 RIMSEAL FIRE FREQUENCY
LASTFIRE
BY AREA

Country/ Nigeria
Southern Northern North Saudi
Europe Europe America Venezuela Thailand Singapore Arabia
Region
Number
of
fires
7 13 15 9 2 3 2 1
Tank 333 6247 15264 4611 159 224 1035 3392
years

Frequency
( x 10-3/tank year ) 21 2 1 2 13 13 2 0.3
Thunderstorm
days per year 160 30 20 40 60 70 120 10
 FULL SURFACE FIRE
LASTFIRE
ANALYSIS
Total of 6 full surface fires during 4 incidents
☺ 1 escalation in 55 rim seal fires
(Roof pontoons contained vapours and/or liquid)

☺ 1 escalation in 2 bund fires impinging on tank shell

☺ 1 escalation from a spill fire on the roof
☺ 1 full surface fire in 37 sunken roofs incidents
☺ Escalation to 2 downwind tanks in 1 full surface fire
(Low boiling temperature fuel)

☺ 1 boilover in 6 full surface fires

LASTFIRE
RISK REDUCTION OPTIONS

Options addressed:-

Tank & Bund Design & Operation

Incident Detection

Fire Protection Systems

Portable/Mobile Fire Fighting
Equipment

Fire Response Strategies

Final options chosen should be based on site-specific analysis

LASTFIRE
RISK REDUCTION OPTIONS

Fire related Tank Inspection

Mechanical failure

Electrical fittings

Fire detection systems

Fire protection systems

Fire Fighting Equipment

Ideally, via a weekly walk-round checklist

LASTFIRE
RISK REDUCTION OPTIONS

Fire retardant rimseal

Tank Roof Tank Roof

Fire retardant rimseal Non fire retardant rimseal

Fire containment Fire spread
LASTFIRE
RISK REDUCTION OPTIONS

Linear Heat Detector

Linear Heat Detector
in rimseal area

Tank Roof

1 2 3 4 5 6
FIRE
FAULT

SYSTEM ALARM SYSTEM RESET SILENCE CONTROL

FAULT SILENCED HEALTHY ALARM ENABLE

End-of-line
device
LASTFIRE
RISK REDUCTION OPTIONS
Linear Heat Detector - specification considerations

Environmental & Operating conditions

Normally no zoning required on tank
Normally do not require back-up detector
Monitor for integrity
Care with routing onto tank roof
Include additional length for easier repair
Include test mechanism
Linear Heat Detector - detector location

Good location - detector close to top of seal

 Linear Heat Detector - detector location

Poor location - detector away from top of seal

Rimseal Foam Systems

Foam applied
to
rimseal area
Rimseal Protection Systems

“One Shot Systems”

Limited application time

Maintenance issues
Rimseal Protection Systems

Extended Discharge Systems

Longer application time

Rimseal Foam Systems
Foam Concentrate Proportioning Systems

Fully Fixed System Semi Fixed System

LASTFIRE
RISK REDUCTION OPTIONS

Foam Systems - Specification considerations

Minimise system outlet blockage potential

Cohesive foam discharge

Foam dam higher than seal assembly

Drain holes in foam dam

Hydrant outlets at top of tank

Ease of inspection/testing

Correct proportioning at all possible flows

Operator training
LASTFIRE
RISK REDUCTION

Preplanning

Formalise
Operator actions
Firefighter actions

Training

Exercises

Systems/Equipment maintenance

Update
Full Surface Fire Response

Options
•Burn Down
•System Application
•Monitor Attack
Full Surface Fire Response

Pump-out and Controlled Burndown

Pump -out and Controlled Burndown
Pump-out

Example

•Shell, New Jersey

Note:
Cooling monitors only
Note tank height!!!
Pump -out and Controlled Burndown
Pump-out
Considerations
• Smoke
Smoke
• Public
Public Image
Image
• Incident
Incident Duration
Duration
• Pump
Pump out
out capability
capability
•• Spare
Spare tankage
tankage
•• Flow
Flow rates
rates
• Exposure
Exposure Protection
Protection
• Boilover
Boilover Potential
Potential
• Prior
Prior Acceptance
Acceptance byby Authorities
Authorities
Full Surface Fire Response

Full
Full Surface
Surface Foam
Foam System
System
Full Surface Foam System

Example

•OMV, Austria
Full Surface Foam System
Considerations
•Manning Exposure Minimised
•Response Time Minimised
•Cost
•System Maintenance / Testing
•Reduced Flow Rates
•Foam Flow Issues if Tank > 60m
Full Surface Fire Response

Monitor
Monitor Application
Application
 Monitor Attack

Examples

•Sunoco, Sarnia
Sarnia,, Canada

•Orion, USA
Monitor attack started
 Norco Fire, June 2001

83m diameter
Gasoline Fire
Monitor Attack
Considerations
• Manning
Manning Requirements
Requirements
••Numbers
Numbers
••Competencies
Competencies
• Personnel
Personnel Safety
Safety
•• Radiant
Radiant heat
heat
•• Boilover
Boilover
•• Bund
Bund access
access // footing
footing
• Logistics
Logistics
•• Foam
Foam supply
supply
•• Water
Water supply
supply
• Allowance
Allowance for
for Foam
Foam Losses
Losses (60%)
(60%)
• Drainage
Drainage Issues
Issues
Full Surface Fire Response
Options
Whatever one you choose
PREPLAN
&
EXERCISE THE
PREPLAN!!
 LASTFIRE
Large
Large Atmospheric
Atmospheric Storage
Storage Tank
Tank Fires
Fires

Follow-Up Work
Lightning Protection
of Floating Roof
Storage Tanks
 Main Issues
• Proprietary equipment no guarantee!
• Sparking at seals very likely
• Shunts not usually effective
• Ensure earth lead effectiveness
 Poor Shunt
Contact

Good Shunt
Contact
Earth leads are important!
Lightning
Lightning
Protection
Protection
System
System
 LASTFIRE
Large Atmospheric Storage Tank Fires

Risk Workbook
 Risk Workbook
Consequences
X
Frequency Risk 1
Add FEHM measure
Consequences
X
Frequency Risk 2
If ( Risk 1 - Risk 2 ) > Cost of measure,
then cost benefit achieved
 RISK WORKBOOK
LASTFIRE Cost Benefit Analysis
A Risk Reduction Option is cost beneficial if :-

{(C without × γ without ) - (C with × γ with )} × Pr control > Cost of implementa tion

where:
Cwithout = Expected cost of incident without option in place

Cwith = Expected cost of incident with option in place

γ without = Expected statistical frequency of the initiating event if option

is not implemented

γ with = Expected statistical frequency of the initiating event if option

is implemented
Pr control = Probability that option will perform as required
An Easier Way….
 Risk Workbook
• Now updated
• Computerised version available
• 4 analyses
•• Rimseal
Rimseal FireFire
•• Spill
Spill // Partial
Partial Surface
Surface Fire
Fire
•• Full
Full Surface
Surface Fire
Fire
•• Bund
Bund FireFire
• Database
• Help / Advice
 Introduction
and
Guidance

Tank Identification
and Size

Risk Mitigation
Option Selection
Fighting Floating Roof Tank
Rimseal Fires
• Made by Fire-fighters for Fire-fighters

• Draws extensively from LASTFIRE

Project knowledge

• Practical guide to fighting rimseal fires

• Fire-fighting strategies outlined

• Guidance on creating pre-fire plans for

rimseal scenarios
 Scenes
Scenes from
from LASTFIRE
LASTFIRE
Video
Video -- ‘Fighting
‘Fighting Floating
Floating
Roof
Roof Tank
Tank Rimseal
Rimseal Fires’
Fires’
Foam
Foam Fire
Fire Test
Test For
Storage
Storage Tank
Tank Fires
Fires
Foam
Foam Fire
Fire Test
Test For
For Storage
Storage Tank
Tank
Fires
Fires
Comprehensive test specification developed
Foam fire test exclusively for tank application
Entirely relevant test:
Critical application rates
Realistic application methods
Realistic foam properties
Easily set-up
Adaptable to suit fireground needs
Proven to differentiate between foams
2.44m
2.44m Diameter
Diameter
Fire
Fire Test
Test Pan
Pan
 Realistic
Foam
Properties

Realistic
Application
Methods
 ‘System’
‘System’
Application
Application
Rapid
Rapid Knockdown
Knockdown butbut Poor
Poor
Sealing
Sealing Capability
Capability
Excellent
Excellent Burnback
Burnback
Resistance
Resistance
Tank Firefighting
Workshop
 Tank Firefighting Workshop
Objectives
To provide general site familiarisation
To increase knowledge of tank fire scenarios
To review tank fire response strategy/tactics
Options
Strategies
To practice response tactics
Fire Training Ground
Tank Farm
To review plans for tank Fire Hazard Management
 Tank Firefighting Workshop
Programme - Day 1
Tank types and fire scenarios
Tank incident videos
Firefighting foam and foam systems
Tank Fire hazard management (FHM)
Protection/detection systems
Fire modelling
Preplanning
TankFire Response Tactics
Future Tank FHM
 Tank Firefighting Workshop
Programme - Day 2
Terminal Familiarisation
Exercise Overview and Safety Features
Training Ground – rimseal fire simulator
Tank Farm – response Exercise
Debrief
On
On the
the Training
Training
Ground
Ground
Rimseal
Rimseal FireFighting
FireFighting
Tactics
Tactics
 Partial
Circumference
Rimseal Fire

Full
Circumference
Rimseal Fire
22 Man
Man Attack
Attack At
At All
All Times
Times
Using
Using Foam
Foam Extinguishers
Extinguishers
Rimseal
Rimseal Fire
Fire
Response
Response
Simulator
Simulator
Briefing
Briefing Session
Session
Dry
Dry Chemical
Chemical Attack
Attack
Note Flashback!
Handheld
Handheld Foam
Foam Extinguishers
Extinguishers
Foam
Foam Handline
Handline
Tank Farm –
Response Exercise
Exercise
Exercise
Briefing
Briefing
Exercise
Briefing
 Water spray/cone will
allow team to access wind
girder/walkway.

Spray handlines may need

to move with team.
Avoid water diluting foam
stream or foam application
More Information about LASTFIRE Deliverables
from:
Resource Protection International
Lloyd Berkeley Place, Pebble Lane, Aylesbury, Bucks
HP20 2JH, UK
T: +44 (0) 1296 399311
F: +44 (0) 1296 395669

e-mail: ramsden@resprotint.co.uk
website: www.resprotint.co.uk