Browse by Category

News

Features

LPG Industry

Magazine

Safeguarding Your Assets with Fire Protection for Lpg Storage Vessels

By Steve Jones, S J Fire Protection (Services) Ltd

Is your company doing everything it can to meet the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) fire prevention requirements for lpg storage vessels? Steve Jones of S J Fire Protection (Services) Ltd puts the case for safeguarding your assets with fire protection coating.

Current HSE regulations require that all lpg storage tanks above a certain size should be protected from the possibility of a fire in one of two ways or, preferably, both. The first way is to install a deluge system that, in the event of a fire, triggers into action and dowses water over the tanks.

Deluge systems are costly to run and are also very temperamental. They sometimes don’t actually work when required to. I also have doubts as to how effective the water from a deluge system would be against a hydrocarbon fire, which can reach 1,200 degrees Celsius plus.

The second way is to install a passive fire protection coating to the outside of the lp gas tank and to the saddles that support it. A cement based fire tested product, such as Fendolite M11, is sprayed on the tank, usually to a thickness of between 30mm and 50mm, depending on size.

The HSE sees this coating as the best protection as it is a permanent protective jacket that, in the event of a fire, can keep the lpg tank and its contents in a stable condition, i.e. without explosion or breakdown, for a minimum of two hours, sometimes up to six. This also benefits the Fire Brigade, as the risk of further lp gas tanks going up in flames is virtually minimal.

Cement based systems are a one off installation and their lifespan is 20 years plus, with maintenance only required when weld test inspections, etc, are carried out.

So why bother installing fire protection? The HSE recommends it but isn’t currently enforcing it. But what if the organisation you own or work for had a fire?

Hopefully, it’s an incident where no one is hurt or injured and is far enough away from any houses or businesses so as not to cause them damage. But your lpg plant or installation is up in flames.

The Fire Brigade spends all day and night fighting the fire, which is eventually put out. The lp gas plant has gone. All employees are now out of work and the owner is faced with a rebuilding cost. Who will pay for this?

Oh, yes, your insurance company. You put in a claim. The insurance company wants to know why there was no fire protection on the tanks as the HSE specialist says it’s a requirement. It won’t pay out.

Just imagine if this had happened and people were injured or killed, as in the case of ICL
Plastics in Scotland. The directors/executives have been held responsible.

By adhering to HSE regulations, you have done what is required. No one can stop accidents occurring, but at least being protected and adhering to regulations can exonerate your company.

Regardless of the damage and legal connotations, what about protecting your investment?
The chances are that, even after the most intense of fires, lpg tanks that have been fireproofed will still be fit for purpose, as Laporte found out when part of its plant at Warrington was ravaged by fire in 1984. Fortunately, several tanks that stored various types of chemicals had been fireproofed.

The tanks remained intact and stable throughout a hydrocarbon fire that lasted more than 24 hours. After being cleaned down, the tanks were re-commissioned.

The Buncefield explosion of 2005 is still fresh in our minds. At present, a legal battle is taking place to ascertain who should pay whom for what damage. Insurance companies aren’t interested because of various lapses in adherence to regulations. Eventually, the whole saga will cost hundreds of millions, maybe a few billion, who knows?

If fire protection had been installed to the outside of the 20 storage tanks (at a cost of no more than £10 million – peanuts compared to the damage and loss of business) then, after the first tank exploded due to technical or accidental failure, the other 19 would not have caught fire. The Fire Brigade would then have been able to fight the fire at the first tank and not keep evacuating. There would still have been damage to local businesses caused by the initial explosion, but on a much smaller scale.

Once the fire to the first tank had been brought under control and the immediate area had been made safe for use again, the other 19 tanks could still have been used whilst the damaged one was reinstated, if it needed to be at all. In other words, the facility could have carried on in virtually the same capacity as before.

My message is threefold. Are you complying with current HSE regulations (regardless of enforcement)? How liable could you be for damage, injury or even loss of life in the event of a fire or explosion? And do you want to protect your investment for the future?

Contact S J Fire Protection (Services) Ltd on 01253 300799

You must be logged in to post a comment.