Where firefighters come to talk training

Water Injection tactic with LPG leaks

Our department has trained and successfully used the "Water Injection Tactic" for over 20 years. Recently I've been told that the risk of pumping water into an LPG Tank to float the liquid gas product above the breach is too great. Does anyone have any evidence or more information to support this. This method in certain situations has provided a safer environment to transfer or flare off the product but safety of our crews is #1.
Thanks Brian

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Larry Lasich on February 14, 2009 at 6:12pm

I haven't heard of the name but this sounds like a HazMat Tech job.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Puchol on March 5, 2009 at 5:46pm

To me the risk is essentially that for a period of time, your crew could be performing in an atmosphere within the lower and upper explosive limits. Besides, you are replacing the gaseous interface with water, thus increasing the pressure inside the compartment - which has been structurally compromised, there is another risk factor there.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian Riddel on March 6, 2009 at 3:41pm

I agree air monitoring and a damage assessment of the tank would need to take place prior to any mitigation. In certain situations where the leak is below the liquid vapour line you would only need enough pressure to float the LPG product above the breach and then maintain that water level so only water is leaking. This provides a temporary safe environment to transfer or flare the product. It has been done here multiple times but it recently has become a safety issue. I was looking for any hard evidence that this procedure has caused an unsafe situation to get worse.

Mike Puchol said:

To me the risk is essentially that for a period of time, your crew could be performing in an atmosphere within the lower and upper explosive limits. Besides, you are replacing the gaseous interface with water, thus increasing the pressure inside the compartment - which has been structurally compromised, there is another risk factor there.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Larry Lasich on March 6, 2009 at 5:01pm

Brian Riddel said:

. It has been done here multiple times but it recently has become a safety issue. I was looking for any hard evidence that this procedure has caused an unsafe situation to get worse.
Safety issue? No kidding?
This is a classic "stay the hell back" deal. Don't bring ignition sources, get ready for the worst, evacuate everyone and wait for the HazMat heros to go do that Voodoo that they do so well.

▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome to
Fire Engineering Training Community

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Policy Page

PLEASE NOTE

The login above DOES NOT provide access to Fire Engineering magazine archives. Please go here for our archives.

CONTRIBUTORS NOTE

Our contributors' posts are not vetted by the Fire Engineering technical board, and reflect the views and opinions of the individual authors. Anyone is welcome to participate.

For vetted content, please go to www.fireengineering.com/issues.

We are excited to have you participate in our discussions and interactive forums. Before you begin posting, please take a moment to read our community policy page.

Be Alert for Spam
We actively monitor the community for spam, however some does slip through. Please use common sense and caution when clicking links. If you suspect you've been hit by spam, e-mail peter.prochilo@clarionevents.com.