Does Fueloil-6 has a boil-over risk?

[DavidCR]

We have plans to build a power plant that would require a minimum of 26000m3 (163535 bbls or 6.88 million gal) of fuel oil 6 storage(also know as bunker C fuel used for power generating with 4 stroke engines), and the first aproach of storage is:

-3 tanks API 650, fixed cone roof.
-9000m3 (56608 bbls) capacity each.
-Diameter: 32.2m (106'), height 11.3m (37'), aspecto ratio 0.35.

I read in a formal interpretation of NFP30 that fuel oil No.6 is not defined as a boil-over liquid (I include the NFPA answer bellow). And I reckon if there is not more behind this "No" answer.

NFPA 30 formal interpretation.
"Question: Is it the intent of NFPA 30 that Fuel Oil #6 be considered a boil-over liquid, as per the
definition of boil-over, viz., crude oil (or certain other liquids) and as per the applicability of Table
4.3.2.1.3 of NFPA 30 governing boil-over liquids?
Answer: No."

I´ve have read all the definitions of boil-over an the theory of boil over but not found a positive directive how to define if a specific oil has or not a boil-over risk.

¿Does somebody know if fuel oil 6 should be considered as a liquid subject to boil-over risk, related with aspects such as tank to tank distances, tank to properties distances, foam equipment use, individual containment (dike) for each tank?

Following the formal interpretation of NFPA it looks that it is not subject to boil-over, but I would like to hear more coments from others points of view, since for me the properties of the oil makes me think that it enters on the boil-over risk or special froth/slop-over considerations due to the size of the tanks.

The properties of the fuel oil 6 we have here are:
-Flash Point[°C]: average 109 (min 82- max 150).
-Flash Point[°F]: average 228 (min 180- max 302).

-Boling point[°C]: above 205 (range 204-700).
-Boling point[°F]: above 400 (range 400-1292).

Sp gravity range: 0.88-0.98.

We have no experience with fuel oil 6 on big tanks, in my company we follow NFPA standars and also we follow recomendations of the mexican oil company PEMEX. Considering liquids with boil-over risk the mexican standard are more stringent than NFPA since the objetive of this standard is more directed to protect the value of the stored fuel. And there is a big difference in aspects such as the requirement of diking area for example.

And of course thanks in advance for all your comments and best wishes for all the people in this forum.

 

[stookeyfpe]

I will say that based on my experience that number 6 FO is not a boilover hazard.

I add the caveat that you need to talk to David White in College Station, Texas. He is the publisher of Industrial Fire World, an industrial fire protection magazine.

Boilover is predominantly a crude oil problem. But I as you to defer to David because he has far more experience in this arena.

Good luck. If you want a phone number, use Google.

 

[MJCronin]

david...

I suggest that you re-post in a chemical process engineering forum also

--MJC