INTERNATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION 47
STORAGE TANKS
H
owever, we have to go back as far as 1981
to find Europe's trigger for what we might
call the new wave of tank firefighting � there
was a realization that aspirated low volume foam
application had serious shortcomings. Tank 80X1 at
Mobil Oil, Coryton refinery was the ground breaker
at that time as it brought about Europe's first realis-
tic and thorough full surface tank fire fighting
appraisal project carried out jointly by Mobil Oil,
Shell UK & Essex County Fire & Rescue Service. It
culminated in the development of Europe's first
refinery full surface tank fire fighting procedures.
Both large volume non aspirating monitors of
22,000 & 37,500 lpm were evaluated along with
the first realistic practical appraisal since the 1930's
of both the correct type of foams to use and the
foam application rates to be effective. We saw the
introduction of an application rate of 10.5 lpm/m2
(against the previous Europe wide 6.5 lpm/m2
norm at that time), with the largest tanks being 76
metre diameter crude oil open floating roof tanks.
Between the Coryton and Buncefield fires, the
1983 Tank 11 fire, at the then Amoco Refinery in
Milford Haven, also generated huge media interest
as the second in the trilogy of major UK tank fires
within many people's living memory.
Even if tank fires are rare in the UK, a significant
number of fires occur annually on a worldwide
basis. Given that most large tanks are of the float-
ing roof tank variety, it follows that guidance on
how to extrapolate fire protection guidelines from
smaller tanks to the huge fire risks of today should
be given serious consideration. With ongoing
research into tank fires being coordinated through
the LASTFIRE project and historical data available
from media sources, this contribution will take an
overview of both fixed and portable fire protection
methods.
Assuming that the facility to be designed is in
accordance with a Flammable and Combustible
Liquids Code such as NFPA 30, and that suitable
tank maintenance procedures are followed, the
strategy can call upon guidelines for protection
contained within NFPA 11 or IP19. Both standards
cover everything from cooling spray rates through
to calculating the quantity of foam concentrate to
be stored and the type of foam delivery to be
used. The concern is always whether the success
rates of smaller scale fire tests can be replicated
when faced with a real life incident and all the
variables that real life presents. Equally, risk
assessment should establish whether or not it is
still viable to deal with one tank at a time or to
take the now more widely accepted view that
multiple fires can occur.
The success of fixed systems is always depen-
dent on a good maintenance regimes, adequate
stocks of foam concentrate and that tank dis-
charge devices are not going to be knocked out by
explosion.
By David Owen
Firemain Engineering
www.firemain.com
Storage Tank
Fire Protection
Buncefield has become an iconic incident in the extremely limited pantheon of
major UK tank fires. It joins a select band of "once in a career" fires that have
the ability to change thinking amongst professionals.
Effectively dealing with
fully involved tank fires
requires a scale of attack
unimaginable during
the 1983 Milford Haven
fire

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11Page 12Page 13Page 14Page 15Page 16Page 17Page 18Page 19Page 20Page 21Page 22Page 23Page 24Page 25Page 26Page 27Page 28Page 29Page 30Page 31Page 32Page 33Page 34Page 35Page 36Page 37Page 38Page 39Page 40Page 41Page 42Page 43Page 44Page 45Page 46Page 47Page 48Page 49Page 50Page 51Page 52Page 53Page 54Page 55Page 56Page 57Page 58Page 59Page 60Page 61Page 62Page 63Page 64Page 65Page 66Page 67Page 68Page 69Page 70Page 71Page 72Page 73Page 74Page 75Page 76Page 77Page 78Page 79Page 80Page 81Page 82Page 83Page 84Page 85Page 86Page 87Page 88Page 89Page 90Page 91Page 92 Produced by PageSuite