WO2012107938A4

WO2012107938A4 - A method and system for ground pollution free and minimum oil burning oil storage tank farm

Info

Publication number: WO2012107938A4
Application number: PCT/IN2012/000090
Authority: WO
Inventors: Sridebi BASU; Bhagu Ram CHAHAR
Original assignee: Basu Sridebi; Chahar Bhagu Ram
Priority date: 2011-02-10
Filing date: 2012-02-10
Publication date: 2013-06-20
Also published as: WO2012107938A2; WO2012107938A3

Abstract

Accordingly it is a principle object of the present invention to overcome the disadvantages and limitations of prior art methods and systems and provide a method and system for fire extinguish and rescue, constituted in accordance with the principles of the present invention which will be a oil storage tank farm, wherein burn damage proof and easy to operate fire extinguish and rescue are archived out of the same structure. It is yet another object of the present invention to achieve ground pollution free and minimum oil burning oil storage tank farm.

Claims

AMENDED CLAIMS

received by the International Bureau on 23 April 2013 (23.04.2013)

1. A system for fire extinguish and rescue of inflammable liquid or oil at oil storage tank farm comprises:

a plurality of tanks located in the a tank farm;

a leak proof dyke compound having holding capacity of largest tank volume excluding freeboard;

a fire wall, separates the plurality of tanks, having opening for at least two non return valves in order to transfer of oil tank place to other to avoid spreading of fire on other tank areas within the same dyke, wherein the height of the firewall is same as the leak proof dyke wall without freeboard, and wherein the valve having 45 degree curve arrangement;

a drainage layer laid over the geomembrane on flat ground alone with gravel pit at convenient place to collect the percolated water or oil compacted earth along with one layer of fire clay bricks to protect the geomembrane from fire situation, wherein the fire clay bricks on the top of the drainage layer; and

a ditch drain provided outside of the tank form.

2. The system as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the height of the leak proof dyke wall is 2m including freeboard and the height of the firewall is 1.8m.

3. The system as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the firewall is Oncracked, liquid retaining structure preventing seepage.

4. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the opening in firewall for nonreturn valve is monolithic casting, fire rated, leak proof, tight shut off to prevent seepage of oil during tank burst case.

5. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the nonreturn valves are fire rated as per liquid handled, leak proof and tight shut off.

6. The system as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the geomembrane is spread below the tank farm area upto the oil height of the dyke.

7. The system as claimed in claim 1 , where in the geomembrane is spread over compacted good earth and sand to avoid pollution.

8. The system as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the drainage layer has a proper slope towards the pit for ease of drainage.

9. The system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the drainage layer also alternatively laid by using another layer of geotextile sheet that is used for drainage purpose.

10. The system as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the extra geomembrane sheet is provided up to the liquid limit and earth, at the junction of dyke wall and fire wall.

11. The system as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the drains provided outside of the tank farm are open type, gravel fill Ditch drains.

12. The system as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the drains provided outside of the tank farm are closed type sand filled Tile drains. 3. The system as claimed in claim 11 and 12, wherein Ditch drain/ Tile drain are provided in such a spacing, location and depth, that the water table is below 300mm from bottom of geomembrane in all points of the tank farm.

14. A method for fire extinguish and rescue of inflammable liquid or oil at oil storage tank farm, the method comprising steps of:

pumping is stopped to ail or any other tanks along with tank with fire when any tank within the tank farm is on fire;

operating/opening the non return valves through hydraulic pressure difference and maintaining closed / closing conjugate valves of the opened valves with pneumatic operation or with any other means to make them inactive for hydraulic pressure difference;

22 shutting off the open non return valves on equalization of levels and observed no pressure difference in the two compartment linked through the valve and the conjugate set of valve which is intended to work on reverse flow direction already made inactive by pneumatic operation or any other means;

draining the non burning liquid from bottom of the burning oil chamber to non burning chambers and storing using 45 deg bend on the piping arrangement;

all the non burning tanks are kept cool by the cooling water spray system to avoid getting heated;

foam is spread over the entire tank farm so that the oil stored in the other part of the fire wall but within the same dyke shall not catch fire; and

draining the inflammable liquid or oil stored at dyke to secure storage.

23

STATEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1 )

Inventive Step

The Applicant herewith submits that claims 1-10 relates to a system for fire extinguish and rescue of inflammable liquid or oil at oil storage tank farm including a plurality of tanks located in the tank farm, a leak proof dyke compound having holding capacity of largest tank volume excluding freeboard, a fire wall, separates the plurality of tanks, having opening for at least two non return valves in each side of fire wall In order to transfer of oil take place from one tank to other to stop spreading of fire, wherein the height of the firewall is same as the leak proof dyke wall without freeboard, and wherein the valve having 45 degree curve arrangement, a drainage layer laid over the geomembrane on flat ground alone with gravel pit at convenient place to collect the percolated water or oil compacted earth along with one layer of fire clay bricks to protect the geomembrane from fire situation, wherein the fire clay bricks on the top of the drainage layer and a ditch drain provided outside of the tank form. More particularly, the problem solved by the invention where the system includes at least two non return valves in firewall, Fire wall 1.8m same as dyke wall without freeboard and a Geomembrane below fire brick clay and drainage way to protect soil from oil seepage. Further, the transfer of oil takes place from one tank to another tank to avoid spreading of fire on other tank area with the help of two non return valves and the height of fire wall increased to 1.8m. Fire wall height raised before freeboard and fitted with non return valve so that when first tank say 'A' burns the bottom oil goes to different segments (tanks) and stored there only part of tank A oil burns instead of other tanks say 'Β', 'C, Ό' reduces oil pollution and save resources. In order to stop soil pollution the present invention uses geomembrane sheets below fire clay brick otherwise geomembrane sheets will get burnt also. Geomembrane sheets, fire clay bricks all are known to the world but they were never used in such a way to stop soil pollution in case of tank farm area.

Further, the Applicant has amended the independent claims, the Applicant believes that the amended independent claims and their dependent claims envisage a

24 person skilled in this art that the presently amended independent claims and their dependent claims are not obvious and involve inventive step if the cited art are taken alone or combined together.

Document D 1 (CH 577925) describes about a water pollution control device in a plant for liquid fuels tank or the like, arranged with a number of at least one fire tanks limiting pool floor. The problem solved by this invention where tanks must be surrounded by a dense collection tray to detect leakage and to be able to hold back. Tanks that were constructed, usually only have leaky sinks (fire boundary basins) that do not have sufficient reception capacity and subsequently although sealed easily, but then expanded rarely only with a disproportionate effort to holding tanks with the required volume can be. This is so, because as a rule, are the static and spatial conditions for an increase in the existing walls and / or embankments surrounding the fire basin boundary does not exist. The document describes where broadly reshaping of tanks that comply with current water legislation, at least in the sense of an acceptable compromise. Moreover, the document describes particularly about water pollution control device in a tank system for liquid fuels, or the like, arranged with a number of at least one limiting pool vertical tanks.

Document D2 (US 4765775) describes about environmental protection structures. More particularly, document describes to diked enclosures and diking assemblies designed to prevent the escape of inadvertently spilled liquids. Specifically, portable dike assemblies which may be assembled or disassembled on a substantially liquid impermeable surface in their place of use around storage containers, particularly storage tanks, used to contain liquids. The document solves the problem faced by conventional concrete walls which require extensive, and expensive, forming operations, including the placement of reinforcing steel bars. Also, concrete basin walls and dikes may (normally if these concrete walls are designed as crackproof liquid retaining structures so its very rare to get crack in design life of the structure) develop cracks which allow the contained liquids to escape from them. A still further disadvantage with both earthen dikes and concrete containing walls is that neither is portable and, therefore, they are useful at only one location.

25 Document D 3 (US 5689920) describes generally about a modular containment system, where the primarily for secondary containment of potentially hazardous materials, includes a series of interconnectable beam members which can be interlocked together to form virtually any desired containment perimeter. Further, a sheet of flexible plastic material is laid over the containment

Applicants respectfully assert that D1 , D2 and D3 fail to support a prima facie case of obviousness, because the cited references fail to teach or suggest all of the elements of the Applicants' invention as recited in independent claims 1 , 14 and other independent claims.

Claims 2 and 13 depend directly or indirectly on the presently amended independent claims 1 and 14. For the same reason presented above, claims in question are inventive over the cited arts. In any manner the presently amended claims and their dependent claims are not related to the cited arts. A person skilled in this art can not envisage the present invention if any of the cited art taken alone or combined together.

26