Guideline 18 - 1229954345212

GUIDELINES FOR
CONTROL OF
CONTAMINATION FROM
ABOVEGROUND
STORAGE TANKS
ARPEL GUIDELINES
CONTROL OF CONTAMINATION FROM

ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Authors
Kirk Morrison, M.A. Sc., P. Eng.

Stephen Mailath, M. Sc., P. Geol.
Marko Adzic, B. Sc.
ARPEL, June 1998

ARPEL
Guidelines for the Control of Contamination from Aboveground Storage Tanks
Guideline # ARPELCIDA07EGGUI1898
June 1998
ARPEL, Javier de Viana 2345, CP 11200 Montevideo - URUGUAY

Tel.: (598-2) 400 69 93
Fax: (598-2) 400 92 07
E-mail: arpel@adinet.com.uy
Internet home page: http://www.arpel.org
Authors These Guidelines have been prepared upon request of ARPEL and its Environment, Health and
Industrial Safety Committee by:
Bel••MK Engineering Ltd.

#300, 1010 – 8th Ave. S.W.
Calgary, Alberta - Canada T2P 1J2
Phone: 1 (403) 269 7440
Fax: 1 (403) 237 7422
E-mail: belmk@cadvision.com
The ARPEL Environmental Guidelines Working Group assisted consultants in detailed drafting
and revision.
Reviewers Enrique Escobar Ayoroa YPFB

Víctor León Choy PETROPERU
Gloria Inés Arce ECOPETROL
Isaías Navarro Román PEMEX
Miguel Moyano ARPEL General Secretariat
Oscar González Environmental Services Association of Alberta
Copyright ARPEL hereby grants to the user a non-exclusive, worldwide right to use this document. The
rights of the user are not transferable. This document may not, in whole or in part, be copied,
photocopied, reproduced, translated, or reduced to any electronic medium or machine-readable
form without prior consent in writing from ARPEL. The user shall give full credit to ARPEL
for being the source of this document.
Funding This document has been exclusively prepared for the ARPEL Environmental Program Phase 2.
The Program was funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and co-
managed between the Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA) and Asociación
Regional de Empresas de Petróleo y Gas Natural en Lationamérica y el Caribe (ARPEL).
Disclaimer Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this
publication, neither ARPEL, nor any of its Members, nor the ESAA, nor any of its member
companies, nor CIDA, nor the consultants, will assume liability for any use made thereof.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1.1
2.0 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................2.1
3.0 CODES AND STANDARDS...........................................................................................3.1

3.1 Setbacks of AST's .................................................................................................3.2
3.2 Tankage and Piping Materials...............................................................................3.3
3.3 Cathodic Protection...............................................................................................3.4
3.4 Lining Materials....................................................................................................3.5
3.5 Secondary Containment ........................................................................................3.5
3.6 Inspection, Monitoring and Reporting ..................................................................3.7
3.7 Fire Protection.......................................................................................................3.7
3.8 Leak Detection ......................................................................................................3.9
3.9 Painting and Coatings .........................................................................................3.10
4.0 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................4.1

4.1 Tankage.................................................................................................................4.1
4.1.1 Shell Design ..............................................................................................4.1
4.2 Tank Openings ......................................................................................................4.4
4.2.1 Roofs .........................................................................................................4.4
4.2.2 Piping ......................................................................................................4.12
4.2.3 Pumps......................................................................................................4.13
4.3 Fire Protection.....................................................................................................4.13
4.4 Drainage ..............................................................................................................4.14
4.5 Secondary Containment ......................................................................................4.20
5.0 CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION ....................................................................5.1

5.1 Welding.................................................................................................................5.1
5.2 Earthworks ............................................................................................................5.2
5.3 Concrete Construction ..........................................................................................5.2
5.4 Synthetic Liners ....................................................................................................5.3
5.5 Cathodic Protection...............................................................................................5.3
5.6 Commissioning .....................................................................................................5.3
6.0 AST OPERATIONS .........................................................................................................6.1

6.1 Filling and Emptying Procedures..........................................................................6.1
6.2 Corrosion Protection Monitoring..........................................................................6.1
6.3 Inventory Control .................................................................................................6.3
6.4 Control and Discharge of Impounded Rain Water ...............................................6.3
6.5 Spill Response ......................................................................................................6.4
6.6 Soil and Groundwater Monitoring .......................................................................6.4
i ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd

Page
6.7 Temporary Storage Facilities ...............................................................................6.5
6.8 Recommended Inspection Program .....................................................................6.5
7.0 DECOMMISSIONING AND REMEDIATION OF SUBSURFACE

CONTAMINATION.........................................................................................................7.1
7.1 Soil Remediation Techniques ...............................................................................7.1
7.2 Physical/Chemical Treatment ...............................................................................7.2
7.2.1 Thermal Treatment....................................................................................7.3
7.2.2 Biological Treatment.................................................................................7.3
7.2.3 Fixation/Encapsulation .............................................................................7.4
7.2.4 Excavation and Landfill Disposal............................................................7.4
7.3 Groundwater Remediation Techniques.................................................................7.5
7.3.1 Transport Mechanisms...........................................................................7.5
7.4 Groundwater Remediation and Treatment Techniques ........................................7.9
7.4.1 Construction of Impermeable Barriers......................................................7.9
7.4.2 Construction of Permeable Treatment Beds ...........................................7.10
7.4.3 Pump and Treat .......................................................................................7.10
7.4.4 Free Product Recovery............................................................................7.13
7.4.5 Dissolved Phase Recovery ......................................................................7.15
7.4.6 Vapour Extraction System ......................................................................7.17
7.4.7 Air Sparging............................................................................................7.19
7.4.8 Surface Treatment Systems.....................................................................7.21
7.4.9 Air Stripping ...........................................................................................7.21
7.4.10 Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Adsorption ......................................7.21
7.4.11 Reverse Osmosis.....................................................................................7.22
7.5 Limitations of Physical Remediation..................................................................7.22
7.6 Contaminant Properties and Desorption .............................................................7.23
7.7 Site Geology and Hydrogeology .........................................................................7.24
7.8 Summary .............................................................................................................7.25
8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................8.1
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 Tank Inspection Check List....................................................................................I.1

Appendix 2 Technique Feasibility Worksheets for Evaluating Success of Various
Groundwater Remediation Schemes (Lyman et al, 1990) ........................................II.1
ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - ii -

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
List of Tables
Table 1.0 Summary of AST Issues Addressed by Key Codes and Standards............................2.2
Table 2.0 Minimum Setback Requirements for Aboveground Storage Tanks
from Property Lines and Buildings........................................................................3.3
Table 3.0 Comparison of Specifications from Codes and Guidelines for
Secondary Containment Systems........................................................................3.6
Table 4.0 Minimum Shell Thickness for Aboveground Storage Tanks.................................4.1
Table 5.0 Permissible Plate Materials and Allowable Stresses..............................................4.3
Table 6.0 Thickness of Shell Manhole Cover Plate and Boiling Flange (inches)...................4.5
Table 7.0 Secondary Containment Minimum Steel Thickness as Determined
by Primary Tank Size............................................................................................4.20
Table 8.0 Angle of Repose of Various Materials...................................................................4.24
Table 9.0 Maximum Reinforcement Thickness on Butt Welds..............................................5.2
Table 10.0 Bottom Plate Minimum Thickness.......................................................................6.2
Table 11.0 Soil Remediation Methods Summary...................................................................7.6
Table 12.0 Summary of Common Organic Compound Properties..............................................7.8
Table 13.0 Groundwater Remediation Methods Summary....................................................7.11
List of Figures
Figure 1.0 Typical Arrangement of Chain Float Gauge..........................................................3.8

Figure 2.0 Typical Leak Detection System.........................................................................3.11
Figure 3.0 Undertank Leak Detection at the Tank Perimeter for Concrete
Ringwall Foundations........................................................................................3.12
Figure 4.0 Undertank Leak Detection at the Tank Perimeter for Crushed
Stone Ringwall Foundations..............................................................................3.13
Figure 5.0 Undertank Leak Detection at the Tank Perimeter for Earthen Foundations.........3.14
Figure 6.0 Typical Draw-off Sump.....................................................................................3.15
Figure 7.0 Double Steel Bottom with Leak Detection........................................................3.16
Figure 8.0 Shell Manhole....................................................................................................4.6
Figure 9.0 Shell Manhole - Details............................................................................................4.7
Figure 10.0 Roof Manhole.....................................................................................................4.8
Figure 11.0 Typical Cone and Sump Tank..................................................................................4.9
Figure 12.0 Typical Floating Roof for AST's............................................................................4.10
Figure 13.0 Typical Breather Roof for AST's ...........................................................................4.11
Figure 14.0 Typical Trench Type Impermeable Barrier...........................................................4.18
Figure 15.0 Typical Concrete Wall Type Impermeable Barrier..................................................4.19
Figure 16.0 Clearance Distances for AST's with Nominal Capacities
Greater than or Equal to 150,000 L....................................................................4.22
Figure 17.0 Impermeable Barriers for Groundwater Remediation.............................................7.12
Figure 18.0 Permeable Treatment Bed..................................................................................7.14
Figure 19.0 Single and Dual Pump Free Product Recovery Systems.....................................7.16
iii ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

Figure 20.0 Typical Soil Vapour Extraction System.................................................................7.18

Figure 21.0 Typical Air Sparging System.................................................................7.20
ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - iv -

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Aboveground storage tanks (AST's) are defined as storage tanks with more than 90% of the
storage tank volume above surface grade and that operate at atmospheric pressure plus or
minus 10 kPa (1.5 psi) (CCME, 1994). AST's are used in both the upstream and downstream
petroleum industry for the storage of products including crude oil (light and heavy oils),
produced water, gas oils, atmospheric and vacuum bottoms, naphtha, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel
fuel, lubricating oils, sour water, nonvolatile chemicals or any other substance having a true
vapour pressure substantially less than atmospheric pressure.
There are many types of AST's. The simplest type is the cone-roof tank having internal
supporting structures and a fixed volume. A variation on the fixed cone-roof is the floating
roof tank. The floating roof tank is designed to reduce filling and breathing losses to a
minimum by eliminating or constantly monitoring the vapour space above the liquid. This
is achieved, as the name suggests, by having the roof float upon the surface of the stored
liquid. Other less commonly used AST's include the lifter-roof type, the breather-roof type
and the small cylinder types.
In the past, codes, standards and guidelines for the design, construction and operation of
AST's focussed on protecting and maintaining the physical integrity of the storage tanks in
order to minimize the probability of fire and product losses. However, concerns over the
impacts of product spills and releases on soil, groundwater and surface water has resulted in
modifications to these codes, standards and guidelines.
The purpose of this document is to review current design and construction requirements, as
well as operations and maintenance procedures employed in and around AST's, specifically
as they relate to minimizing and controlling potential environmental contamination. The
scope of this guideline is limited to AST's located at upstream facilities such as batteries, gas
plants, compressor stations and pipeline terminals and downstream facilities which may
include refineries, tank farms and bulk storage terminals. The focus of the guideline is on the
storage of crude oil and refined products and how industry has addressed the control of soils,
groundwater and surface water environmental contamination which may result from product
releases from AST's.
It should be noted that this guideline does not address atmospheric emissions from AST's.
While atmospheric emissions through evaporative losses represent significant economic and
environmental concerns, their control is addressed in other guidelines prepared within the
ARPEL program.
The guideline also does not deal with small AST's (less than 4 m3 (1058 USG)) used for
storage of gasoline, diesel fuel and/or heating oil at homes and farms. In addition, the
guideline does not deal with pressurized storage of petroleum products (e.g. liquified
petroleum gases (LPG's), etc.).
- 1.1 - ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

The guideline examines and compares existing codes and standards for AST's and associated
equipment. Specific items addressed include AST design and construction requirements, and
operational issues. In addition, a review of procedures for remediating soil and groundwater
which has become contaminated from a spill or release from AST's is presented.
ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - 1.2 -

2.0 BACKGROUND
The storage of crude oil and refined products is an integral part of the primary distribution
system of petroleum products. Storage of petroleum products is provided at production
areas, pipeline pump station terminals, large distribution terminals and refinery facilities.
Product storage at the above mentioned facilities is primarily practiced using AST's. In order
to ensure that the storage of hydrocarbons is safe and cost effective, a number of codes and
guidelines are adhered to in the design, installation and operations of AST's and associative
equipment.
Prior to 1985, the design and fabrication of AST's, and the layout and operations of storage
facilities, were primarily based upon fire and insurance codes. As a consequence, the
adopted codes and guidelines addressed safety requirements such as fire safety and fire
prevention. With the increasing importance of environmental protection over the past decade
however, issues of prevention and mitigation of contamination from AST's have resulted in
additional requirements. These requirements build on the initial codes and guidelines
identifying potential sources of environmental contamination associated with AST's and their
operations. They go on to specify preventative measures and mitigative procedures which
are designed to minimize any environmental impacts.
In general, four environmental receptors may be impacted, directly or indirectly, as a result

of hydrocarbon storage in AST's. They include soils, groundwater, surface waters and the
atmosphere. Soils, groundwater and surface waters are primarily impacted through product
spills. Air emissions, through evaporative storage losses are the main sources of atmospheric
pollutant contamination resulting from AST's.
Even though air emissions comprise a significant proportion of annual product losses
associated with AST's, the focus of the following guideline is concerned with the control of
soils, groundwater and surface waters contamination. In addressing these issues, industry
has developed specifications for the design, installation, operations and maintenance of
AST's, which are intended to minimize and/or prevent any surface or subsurface
environmental contamination. Some of the items addressed include the following:
1. Setbacks of AST's.
2. Construction materials.
3. Cathodic protection.
4. Secondary containment structures.
5. Operational and maintenance requirements.
6. Fire protection requirements.
7. Loss of product detection systems.
8. Painting and coatings.

Table 1.0
Summary of AST Issues Addressed by Key Codes and Standards
AST Requirements Publication Coverage
1. Setbacks from residences and property lines l National Fire Code (NFC)
l Alberta Fire Code (AFC)
2. Tankage and Piping Materials l API Standard 650, "Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage"
l ULC - S601, "Standard for Shop Fabricated Aboveground
Horizontal Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids"
l CAN/ULC - S602, "Standard for Aboveground Steel
Tanks for Fuel Oil and Lubricating Oil"
l CAN/ULC - S643, "Standard for Shop Fabricated Steel
Aboveground Utility Tanks for Flammable and Combustible
Liquids"
3. Cathodic Protection l API RP 651, "Cathodic Protection of Aboveground
Petroleum Storage Tanks"
l CCME EPC LST 71E, "Environmental Code of Practice for
Aboveground Storage Tank Systems Containing
Petroleum Product"
4. Lining Materials l API RP 652, "Lining of Aboveground Petroleum Storage
Tank Bottoms"
5. Secondary Contaminant l ULC S653, "Standard for Aboveground Steel Contained
Tank Assemblies for Flammable and Combustible
Liquids"
l ULC/ORD C142.16, "Protected Aboveground Tank
Assemblies for Flammable and Combustible Liquids"
l ULC/ORD C142.3, "Contained Steel Aboveground
Assemblies for Flammable Liquids"
l ULC/ORD C142.5, "Concrete Encased Steel Aboveground
Tank Assemblies for Flammable and Combustible
Liquids"
l EUB G-55, "Storage Requirements for the Upstream
Petroleum Industry"
l NFC
l AFC
6. Inspection, monitoring and reporting requirements l API Standard 653, "Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration
and Reconstruction"
l CCME EPC LST 71E, "Environmental Code of Practice for
Aboveground Storage Tank Systems Containing
Petroleum Products"
l EUB G-55, "Storage Requirements for the Upstream
Petroleum Industry"
7. Fire Protection l NFC
l AFC

Table 1.0 cont’d

Summary of AST Issues Addressed by Key Codes and Standards
AST Requirements Publication Coverage
8. Floating roof, vapor recovery and gas l CCME EPC LST 71E, "Environmental Code of Practice for Aboveground
blanketing Storage Tank Systems Containing Petroleum Products"
l EUB G-55, "Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry"
l API Standard 620, "Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-
Pressure Storage Tanks"
l API Standard 650, "Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage"
l CCME EPC/TRE 30E, "Environmental Code of Practice for Vapor Recovery
in Gasoline Distribution Networks"
9. Leak Detection l ULC/ORD C58.15, "Overfill Protection Devices for Flammable Liquid
Storage Tanks"
l CCME EPC LST 71E, "Environmental Code of Practice for Aboveground
Storage Tank Systems Containing Petroleum Products"
l ULC/ORD C58.14, "Non-volumetric Leak Detection Devices for
Underground
Flammable Liquid Storage Tanks"
l ULC/ORD C58.12, "Leak Detection Devices (Volumetric Type) for
Underground Flammable Liquid Storage Tanks"
l EUB G-55, "Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry"
10. Painting and Coatings l ULC S653, "Standard for Aboveground Steel Contained Tank Assembles
for Flammable and Combustible Liquids"

3.0 CODES AND STANDARDS
Numerous codes, standards, regulations and guidelines regulating the design, construction
and operation of AST's have been developed. Some of the more important ones which have
been used by the petroleum industry in Alberta are as follows:
1. "Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage", API Standard 650, American Petroleum
Institute, 1995.
This standard presents requirements for the design and construction of AST's. The
standard was developed by the American Petroleum Institute to provide its members (the
major petroleum producers and refiners in North America) with a purchase specification
to facilitate the manufacture and procurement of AST's. Specific items addressed in this
standard include the following:
a) material specifications for AST's including associated piping, structural

appurtenances (e.g. ladders, stairs, platforms, etc.), fittings, welding electrodes,
flanges and bolts.
b) design procedures (structural, mechanical, foundations, etc.).
c) fabrication requirements.
d) field erection requirements.
e) inspection requirements following construction, including testing of welds and joints.
f) welding procedures and welder qualifications.
2. "Standard for Aboveground Steel Contained Tank Assemblies for Flammable and
Combustible Liquids", Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada (ULC) - S653-94.
This standard identifies requirements for AST's equipped with their own secondary
containment systems. It was developed for the insurance industry.
3. "Storage Requirements for the Upstream Petroleum Industry", Alberta Energy and
Utilities Board (EUB) - Guideline 55, 1995.
This guideline was developed by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board , the agency
which regulates the upstream petroleum industry in Alberta. Specifically it identifies
requirements for secondary containment, in addition to identifying requirements for tank
registration and regular inspection, monitoring and reporting.
4. "Alberta Fire Code 1992", Alberta Fire Prevention Council.
This code regulates the design, construction and operation of AST's within Alberta.
Specifically it presents requirements for AST location, spacing, design, reporting and
monitoring.

5. "National Fire Code of Canada 1990", Associate Committee on the National Fire
Code.
This code regulates the design, construction and operation of AST's in Canada, and is the
basis on which the AFC was developed. Its content is very similar to the AFC.
6. "Environmental Code of Practice for Aboveground Storage Tank Systems

Containing Petroleum Products", Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment (CCME)., 1994.
This guideline was developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
(CCME), and was designed to integrate the environmental protection requirements of
AST design, construction and operation with the traditional fire protection and insurance
requirements. The CCME Code of Practice identifies requirements for the design,
operation, maintenance, upgrading and registration of AST's. In addition, it presents
requirements for the removal of AST's from service.
As noted above, these codes and standards present the requirements for the design,
construction and operations for AST's used for petroleum product storage. Individually none
of codes, standards or guidelines identifies all of the measures required to mitigate potential
environmental impacts associated with AST's. However, the combination of these provides
very complete coverage on the design, construction, operational and environmental
mitigation aspects associated with petroleum product storage in AST's. A brief summary of
the topics addressed by the above mentioned publications, as well as other related documents
is provided in Table 1.0.
The following sections address the specific requirements for AST design, construction and
operations as presented in these codes, standards and guidelines.
3.1 Setbacks of AST's
The majority of the previously mentioned codes, standards and guidelines specify that AST's
should be located a minimum distance from property lines and buildings. This serves to
reduce potential losses and damages to neighbouring structures which may result from an
explosion or a fire, as well as minimizing the potential impacts of a spill or release from the
tanks. A summary of these setback requirements for different AST sizes, is presented in
Table 2.0.

Table 2.0
Minimum Setback Requirements for Aboveground Storage Tanks from Property Lines and Buildings
(From the Alberta Fire Code, 1992)
Maximum Tank Capacity (L) Minimum Setback Distance (m)

250,000 3
500,000 4.5
2,500,000 9
5,000,000 12
>5,000,000 15
Exceptions to the above mentioned setbacks are as follows:
1. The minimum required distance from an AST to a property line or to a building on the
same property can be reduced to 1.5 m provided the tank contains only combustible
liquids and has a storage capacity of less than 50,000 L. Combustible liquids are defined
as those liquids having a flashpoint between 37.8 C and 93.3 C. It should be noted that
the minimum setbacks cannot be reduced for flammable liquids. Flammable liquids are
those which have a flash point below 37.8 C and a vapour pressure not exceeding 275.8
kPa (absolute) at 37.8 C.
2. The minimum distance from an AST to a building on the same property may be reduced
to 0.5 m provided the tank contains only combustible liquids and does not exceed 5,000
L.
It should be noted that municipal or local bylaws may have more stringent setback
requirements than those specified above. This should be considered in the design of the tank
farm.
In addition to setbacks from property lines and buildings, spacing between AST's, and
distances from storm drains and water courses must be considered. The NFC and AFC
specify that the minimum distance between AST's should be one half the diameter of the
smaller tank, and in no case, should the distance be less than one meter. In addition, close
proximity of AST's to storm drains and watercourses should be avoided. Pending
geographical restrictions however, this is not always possible. As such, safety measures such
as secondary containment systems, are required to mitigate spills and releases from these
AST's.
3.2 Tankage and Piping Materials
Construction materials for AST's and associated piping should be compatible with the
chemicals to be stored and/or transported. In addition, the construction materials should be
suitable for the maximum anticipated working pressures and operating temperatures.

The most widely used tank and piping material is steel. The many advantages of steel over
other materials, such as reinforced plastics and exotic alloys, are its strength, durability, ease
of fabrication and relatively low cost. The major disadvantage of steel however, is its
susceptibility to corrosion. Corroded tanks and/or associated piping are one of the most
common sources of product loss and subsequent environmental contamination.
Materials such as fibreglass, are quickly replacing metal tanks in many service applications.
However, given their limited strength and size restrictions, they are not ideally suited for the
requirements of bulk storage in either upstream or downstream facilities. Perhaps the
greatest asset of fibreglass tanks is their one piece construction. This minimizes areas
susceptible to leaks such as joints. As a result, fibreglass tanks are ideally suited for
underground storage purposes.
Exotic metal alloys such as monel, hastalloy and inconel offer excellent corrosion resistance
and strength, but are considerably more expensive than either steel or reinforced plastics. As
such, these materials are normally limited to valve applications where they can meet the
increased demands imposed by excessive pressure and wear.
3.3 Cathodic Protection
Corrosion control can range from increasing metal thickness, (a minimum allowance of 1/16"
is recommended) to control systems such as cathodic protection.
Cathodic protection is used to eliminate corrosion cells on a metal surface by means of an

externally applied current which opposes the corrosion potential of the protected metal.
Perhaps the most important characteristic of cathodic protection is that it is usually the only
practical means of halting corrosion already in progress. The two established means of
providing cathodic protection are the sacrificial anode and the impressed current method.
Sacrificial anodes are either magnesium, zinc or aluminum electrodes which are electrically
connected to the protected metal in an electrolytic environment. The main limitation of
sacrificial anodes is the weakness of the established current. As such, this method is
normally only suited for localized protection (e.g. for buried valves).
The impressed current method, also known as the rectifier system, requires an external
source of direct current which is transmitted to the tank material through anodes composed
of either graphite, carbon, scrap iron or steel, aluminum, platinum, or silicon cast iron. In
effect, this method converts AC current to DC current using the bed of anodes. The
impressed current method is typically used to protect metals having large surface areas. As
such, it is the preferred means of protecting tank bottoms and walls.
Prior to selecting a cathodic protection system, one must consider the following factors:
1. The resistivity of the soil in the tank area.

2. The tank to soil potential.

3. The amount of current flowing from the tank.
These factors are important in making correct procedural decisions. For example, where soil
resistivity is high, magnesium anodes are preferred over zinc anodes in the sacrificial anode
system.
Detailed procedures for the design and installation of cathodic protection systems are
presented in API RP 651 "Cathodic Protection for Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks".
3.4 Lining Materials
Linings are those materials which offer internal protection against corrosion in tanks and
pipes. The selection of lining material depends mainly on the product stored, the temperature
and the extent and type of abrasions that may exist. For example, when storing sour crude
oil, the vapour zone area in cone roof tanks is particulary susceptible to severe corrosion.
The hydrogen sulphide in the crude oil combines with the iron in the roof forming iron
sulphide. Protection against the subsequent scaling, is best provided by plastics and coal tar
paints. Other common lining materials include epoxy resins, furan resins, phenolic resins,
saran, rubber, glass, ceramic and concrete.
The use of lining material imposes certain restrictions on tank construction. For instance,
any butt welds, welding clusters, or other protrusions which may result during construction
of field erected AST's are to be ground smooth prior to applying any internal protective
coatings. The application of the liner should be in conformance with API RP 652, "Lining
of Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Bottoms".
3.5 Secondary Containment
Spills at upstream and downstream facilities can result from any number of different causes.
In order to maximize product conservation and minimize potential surface and/or subsurface
contamination, secondary containment structures such as dykes are essential.
In general, regulations and codes addressing secondary containment specifications are quite
similar. There are however, some elaborations and variations between existing codes and
guidelines. A brief summary of secondary containment requirements for some of the
different codes and guidelines is presented in Table 3.0.
In addition to secondary containment systems such as those described within Table 3.0,
AST's can be constructed with their own secondary containment system. This is achieved by
constructing a secondary tank around the primary tank. The capacity of the secondary tank
should be a minimum of 110% of the primary tank's volume. This design can be
incorporated to meet capacities ranging from 2,500 L to 75,000 L. AST's constructed with
secondary containment are completely portable, and hence are ideal for temporary locations.

Table 3.0
Comparison of Specifications from Code and
Guidelines for Secondary Containment Systems
Secondary Published Reference

Containment
Detail AFC, 1992 NFC, 1990 CCME-EPC-LST-71E EUB, G-55
1. Construction
Dyking Materials l Earth, concrete, steel or l Earth, concrete, steel or l Concrete, clay or steel l Earth, concrete,
solid masonry solid masonry synthetic liner or
any other material
that is inert to the
material being
stored.
Dyke Walls l Flat top not less than 600 l Flat top not less than 600 l All construction l No references
mm wide mm wide specifications as per made to dyke wall
l Height between 0.6 m - l Height specifications as NFC, 1990. construction
1.8 m from ground level per AFC, 1992. specifications.
within the enclosing dyke,
unless acceptable
provisions are made to
facilitate access to storage
tanks and valves and safe
areas from the dyked area.
Permeability l Maximum permeability of l Maintained to provide l Sustained l Permeability of 1 x
1.0 x 10-6 cm/sec. impermeability. permeability to water 10-6 cm/sec or less.
less than1 x 10-6
cm/sec under a
hydraulic head of 3
m.
2. Clearances
Tank and Dyke Wall l Sufficient so that a jet of l For tanks with capacities < l Clearances are as per l No reference made
liquid issuing from a 150,000 L the distance NFC, 1990 to clearance.
puncture will not over need not exceed 3.0 m specifications.
shoot the dyke
l Tank and center line of
dyke shall not be less than
3 m or½ of the height of
AST above the top of
dyke, which ever is
greater.
l For tanks with capacities <
150,000 L, the distance
need not exceed 3.0 m and
if permitted by the fire
authority may be reduced
to 1.5 m.
3. Capacity
l One tank; sufficient to l Capacity specifications as l Capacity is as l Capacity is as
contain 110% of tank per AFC, 1992. specified by the NFC, specified by the
volume 1990. NFC, 1990.
l Two or more tanks ;
sufficient to contain 100%
of the largest tank plus
10% of all remaining tanks
or 110% of the largest
tank, whichever is greater.

Some of the features which have been built into the design of these tanks are as follows:
1. 10 L spill containment box.

2. Anti-syphon check valve.
3. Fill shut-off valve set at 95% of tank capacity.
4. Removable rain shields.
5. Fill access ladder, platform and handrails.
6. Dispensing area platform.
7. Water draw-off valve.
For a complete review of such systems, consult ULC-S653-94, "Standard for Aboveground
Steel Contained Tank Assemblies for Flammable and Combustible Liquids".
3.6 Inspection, Monitoring and Reporting
When storage tanks are built, they are inspected and tested in accordance with the standards
to which they are being constructed. As such, the focus during such inspections is on metal
thickness, absence of defects and soundness of welded joints. While in operation, AST's are
generally inspected to determine the physical condition of the tanks, the rate of deterioration
and, if possible, the causes of deterioration.
Standards such as API Standard 653, "Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration and
Reconstruction" are primarily concerned with the physical integrity of tankage and piping
materials. Chapter XIII of API's Guide for Inspection of Refinery Equipment (1981) presents
specific recommendations as well as inspection checklists and schedules, for AST's. As such,
suggested inspection checklists focus on signs of physical deterioration, the most significant
of which is corrosion. Environmental considerations such as controlling soil, groundwater
and/or surface water contamination are not directly addressed. Other codes and standards
present requirements for environmental monitoring. For example, EUB Guide G55 presents
specific requirements for groundwater monitoring in certain cases.
3.7 Fire Protection
Fire protection is a combination of fire prevention, fire control and fire extinguishment. Fire
prevention involves minimizing sources of fire so that fires can be avoided. Fire control is
meant to minimize the spread of a fire and subsequently reduce potential damages. Fire
extinguishment involves putting out the fire quickly, skilfully and effectively.
The design of AST's and facility layout, largely influences the degree of fire prevention and
fire control. The use of specified construction materials such as steel is the first step in fire
prevention. The provision of secondary containment systems allows for the control of
environmental contamination and ease of access for fire fighting. Tank spacing requirements
and setback distances from buildings and property lines, aid in controlling the spreading of
fires.


Requirements for fire protection equipment, as well as procedures for fighting fires around
AST's containing petroleum products are outlined in API Publication 2021 "Guide for
Fighting Fires In and Around Petroleum Storage Tanks (1980). Specific items addressed
include fire fighting agents (e.g. water, foam, dry chemicals, etc.), as well as specific
procedures for fighting fires in different types of tanks (e.g. cone roof versus floating roof).
A commonly overlooked design aspect in downstream facilities such as refineries is the

sewer system. Inadequately designed sewer systems are potential fire hazards and can
contribute to the spread of fires. Factors that need to be considered in their design include
capacity, frequency of sealed manholes, location of sealed catch basins and sewer vents.
A more detailed review of the above is presented in Section 4.4.
3.8 Leak Detection
Leak detection may simply be a part of a regular inspection and monitoring program or can
include foundation monitoring and/or overfill prevention techniques and devices such as
product level alarms.
High and low liquid level alarms are very common. Many of the alarms are directly
connected to pump shut-off controls. In general, there are three basic types of liquid level
monitors associated with AST's. They include float-activated mechanisms, displacer devices
and hydrostatic-head sensors. Use of displacer devices and hydrostatic head sensors require
a precise knowledge of liquid and vapour densities within the tank. Float activated monitors
on the other hand, only require that the product stored have a liquid level. Given their low
cost and reliability, float-activated gauges are commonly used in AST's.
Float-activated devices consist of a float connected to an external indicating mechanism.

These may include, chain or tape-float gauges, lever and shaft-float gauges and magnetically
coupled floats. A typical float-activated liquid level monitoring device is illustrated in
Figure 1.0.
Displacer systems utilize the buoyant force of a partially submerged displacer to measure
liquid level. Three commonly used displacer systems include flexure-tube displacers,
magnetically-coupled displacers and torque-tube displacers. Such systems can be used in
AST's and pressurized or vacuum storage tanks.
Hydrostatic-head devices employ standard pressure or differential measuring devices.

Pressure-gauge systems are the simplest and most commonly used applications of head-level
measurement. Such systems are normally not recommended to be used on AST's but rather
are more appropriately suited for use within pressured tanks.
Leak detection can also be provided underneath the AST. This typically consists of a drain
pipe placed at the perimeter of the tank foundation connected to a monitoring well or sump.
This is illustrated in Figures 2.0-7.0 for various tank foundation types. As shown in these

figures, the drain pipe is usually placed in gravel or washed rock, such that liquids
preferentially migrate towards the drain.
Key items to note in the design, construction and monitoring of leak detection systems are
as follows:
1. Liners should be chemically resistant to the range of products stored at given ambient air
temperatures. For example, standard polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is chemically dissolved
when exposed to hydrocarbons. High density polyethylene (HDPE) or oil resistant PVC
must therefore be used where synthetic liners are required.
2. The permeability of the leak detection barrier shall not exceed 1 x 10-6 cm/sec. As such,
clay or clay till soils must be used, as opposed to sands and silts, for liner systems.
3. The material in contact with the subgrade shall be suitable for below grade service or be
protected against degradation.
4. The leak barrier shall be of one piece construction, or the joints shall satisfy the leak
tightness, permeability and chemical resistance requirements for the base leak barrier
material.
5. Regular inspection and monitoring of the monitoring wells and/or sumps should be
carried out.
3.9 Painting and Coatings
Atmospheric corrosion of tank exteriors can be controlled by the use of paints and coatings.
The required degree of control is largely dependant upon atmospheric conditions. Depending
upon surrounding atmospheric environmental conditions, the corrosion extent may range
from negligible to severe. According to the Steel Structures Painting Council (SSPC), there
are four standard classes of corrosive environments. They range from highly humid,
industrial conditions with harsh chemical and weather exposure, to dry rural conditions with
no chemical exposure. Epoxy resins are commonly used for coating AST's.







4.0 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
As previously mentioned in Section 3.0, there are specific design requirements established
by the previously noted codes and standards. These specifications cover details ranging from
the construction and installation of AST's and associated piping, to fire protection, drainage
and secondary containment systems. The following sections review specific design
requirements as they relate to tankage, piping, fire protection, drainage and secondary
containment systems.
4.1 Tankage
The design and construction of field erected AST's is fairly uniform throughout the
petroleum industry. Normally, specifications set out by API Standard 650, "Welded Steel
Tanks for Oil Storage" are followed. As such, the proceeding review is based upon
information as presented within API Standard 650.
Several factors need to be considered when designing an AST. They include ambient air
temperature, product specific gravity, wind velocity and corrosion allowance, if any. In
addition, special consideration must be given to site location. The location of the AST will
among other things, influence the design and construction of the tank foundation.
4.1.1 Shell Design
Required shell thickness is always greater than the thickness required to withstand the
hydrostatic head test, plus an allowance for corrosion. In any event, shell thickness
should not be less than the values listed within Table 4.0.
Table 4.0
Minimum Shell Thickness for Aboveground Storage Tanks
Nominal Tank Diameter (feet) Minimum Plate Thickness (inches)

3
250,000.00 /16
500,000.00 3
5
2,500,000.00 /16
3
>200 /8
Notes: 1. The nominal tank diameter is the centerline diameter of the bottom shell course plates.
2. Nominal plate thickness refers to the tank shell as constructed. The thickness specified is based on
erection requirements.
Shell thickness should be calculated based upon the assumption that the tank is filled to
a level with a liquid having a specified specific gravity or water, respectively. Liquid
levels can be incorporated into the following equations:

td = 2.6 D (H-1) G + CA
Sd
tt = 2.6 D (H-1) + CA
St
Where:
td = design shell thickness (inches)
tt = hydrostatic test shell thickness (inches)
D = nominal tank diameter (feet)
H = design liquid level (feet), or
= height from the bottom of the course under consideration to the top of the
shell including the top angle, if any; to the bottom of any overflow that limits
the tank filling height; or to any other level, restricted by an internal floating
roof, or controlled to allow for seismic wave action.
G = design specific gravity of the liquid to be stored.
CA = corrosion allowance (inches).
Sd = allowable stress for the design condition (psi).
St = allowable stress for the hydrostatic test condition, (psi).
Note: The maximum allowable product design stress (Sd) and hydrostatic test stress (St) can be
determined from Table 5.0.
An alternative method of calculating shell thickness is the variable design point method. This
procedure provides a reduction in shell course thicknesses and total material weight, but more
important is its potential to permit construction of larger diameter tanks within the maximum
plate thickness limitation. For a detailed discussion on this method, Section 3.6.4 of API
Standard 650 should be consulted.
For tanks having diameters less than 200 feet, as those commonly found at battery sites, the
following formula can be used to calculate the minimum thickness of shell plates:
t = 2.6D (H-1) G + CA
(E) (21,000)
Where:
t = minimum thickness (inches)
D = nominal diameter of the tank (feet)
H = design liquid level (feet)
G = specific gravity of liquid to be stored. G should not be less than 1.0.
E = joint efficiency
CA = corrosion allowance, (inches).

Table 5.0 - Permissible Plate Materials and Allowable Stresses
Plate Grade Minimum Minimum Product Design Hydrostatic Test

Specification Yield Strength Tensile Strength Stress (Sd) (psi) Stress (St) (psi)
(psi) (psi)
ASTM Specifications
A 283 C 30,000.00 55,000.00 20,000.00 22,500.00
A 285 C 30,000.00 55,000.00 20,000.00 22,500.00
A 131 A,B,CS 34,000.00 58,000.00 22,700.00 24,900.00
42.00 36,000.00 58,000.00 23,300.00 24,900.00
A 131 EH36 51,000.00 71000 28,400.00 30,400.00
A 442 55.00 30,000.00 55,000.00 20,000.00 22,500.00
A 442 60.00 32,000.00 60,000.00 21,300.00 24,000.00
A 573 58.00 32,000.00 58,000.00 21,300.00 24,000.00
A 573 65.00 35,000.00 65,000.00 23,300.00 26,300.00
A 573 70.00 42,000.00 70000 28,000.00 30,000.00
A 516 55.00 30,000.00 55,000.00 20,000.00 22,500.00
A 516 60.00 32,000.00 60,000.00 21,300.00 24,000.00
A 516 65.00 35,000.00 65,000.00 23,300.00 26,300.00
A 516 70.00 38,000.00 70,000.00 25,300.00 28,500.00
A 662 B 40,000.00 65,000.00 26,000.00 27,900.00
A 662 C 43,000.00 70000 28,000.00 30,000.00
A 537 1.00 50,000.00 70000 28,000.00 30,000.00
A 537 2.00 60,000.00 80000 32,000.00 34,300.00
A 633 C,D 50,000.00 70000 28,000.00 30,000.00
A 678 A 50,000.00 70000 28,000.00 30,000.00
A 678 B 60,000.00 80000 32,000.00 34,300.00
A 737 B 50,000.00 70000 28,000.00 30,000.00
CSA Specifications
G40.21M 260W 37,700.00 59,500.00 23,800.00 22,500.00
G40.21M 300W 43,500.00 65,300.00 26,100.00 28,000.00
G40.21M 350WT 50,800.00 69600 27,900.00 29,800.00
G40.21M 350W 50,800.00 65,300.00 26,100.00 28,000.00
ISO 630
Fe42 B,C 34,000.00 60,000.00 23,700.00 25,500.00
Fe44 B,C 35,500.00 62,500.00 23,700.00 26,600.00
Fe52 C,D 48,500.00 71000 28,400.00 30,400.00


4.2 Tank Openings
An important design aspect of AST's, are tank shell and roof manholes. Manholes are essential
to the monitoring, inspection and cleaning of AST's. Shell and roof manholes should conform
to Figures 8-10 and Table 6.0.
Manhole reinforcing plates are preferably, but not limited to, one piece construction. If two or
more pieces are used, however, they are to have a 3"f hole located on the horizontal centerline
opened to the atmosphere.
Other additional shell and roof openings include flush type clean out fittings and shell
connections, nozzles and flanges, all of which are detailed in API Standard 650. Irregardless
of the type and/or size of an opening, proper construction is essential in order to prevent product
loss which may occur at various sealant points.
4.2.1 Roofs
There are many roof types associated with AST's. The simplest and most common type
is the cone roof tank, otherwise known as the fixed roof tank. Such roof types are ideally
suited for upstream facility use and the storage of crude oil. A typical fixed roof tank
as installed at a battery site is illustrated in Figure 11.0. Other commonly encountered
tanks are floating roof tanks. Floating roof type tanks are designed to reduce filtering and
breathing losses to a minimum by eliminating or constantly maintaining the vapour space
above the stored liquid. A typical floating roof tank is illustrated in Figure 12.0. Floating
roof tanks seal the space between the tank wall and the movable roof normally by a shoe
or scuff plate which is pressed tightly against the tank wall by weights or springs, with
a flexible membrane attached between the shoe and the roof deck.
Other less commonly used AST roof types include lifter-roof types, the breather-roof type
and the small cylindrical types. In a breather roof type a number different of methods can
be used to provide an expansion space for vapours without using a loose external roof.
A plain breather roof type tank, is illustrated in Figure 13.0 . Such tanks have a flat roof
that is essentially a flexible steel membrane capable of moving up and down within
narrow limits.
Even though design and construction specifications differ for each roof type, there are
certain common design requirements which are followed. They generally specify that all
roof and supporting structures be designed to support dead load plus a uniform live load
of not less than 25 lbs/ft2 of projected area. In addition, roof plates are to have a
minimum nominal thickness of 3/16", with any corrosion allowance added to the
calculated thickness.

Table 6.0
Thickness of Shell Manhole Cover Plate and Bolting Flange (inches)
Maximum Tank Eqivalent Minimum Thickness of Cover Plate Minimum Thickness od Bolting Flange After
Pressure a Finishing
Height (feet) (psi) 20" 24" 30" 36" 20" 24" 30" 36"
manhole manhole manhole manhole manhole manhole manhole manhole
5 3 7 5 3
21 9,1 /16 /8 /16 ½ ¼ ¼ /16 /8
3 7 9 5 3 7
27 11,7 /8 /16 ½ /16 ¼ /16 /8 /16
3 7 9 5 5 7
32 13,9 /8 /16 /16 /8 ¼ /16 /16 ½
7 5 11 5 3 9
40 17,4 /16 ½ /8 /16 /16 /8 ½ /16
9 5 3 3 7 5
45 19,5 ½ /16 /8 /4 /8 /16 ½ /8
9 11 11 3 7 9 11
54 23,4 ½ /16 /16 /16 /8 /16 /16 /16
9 5 3 7 7 5 3
65 28,2 /16 /8 /4 /8 /16 ½ /8 /4
5 11 13 15 9 11 13
75 32,5 /8 /16 /16 /16 ½ /16 /16 /16
Notes: a. Equivalent pressure is based on water loading.







In the past, roofing design requirements have focused upon product and construction
material properties. There are however, environmental influences that can alter design
requirements. Influences such as wind will affect the determination of allowable stresses
such as tension, compression, bending, shearing and load. Prior to the construction of an
AST, such factors must be incorporated in the original designs.
4.2.2 Piping
Pipe selection should be based upon consideration of potential pressures, temperatures,

product type and chemical environments. In addition, the number of joints and
connections should be minimized in order to provide a simple, easy to follow system.
Pipe supports should be located to support the piping network against static (i.e. the
weight of the pipe, fluid and insulation), surge and vibrational loads. It should be
constructed to allow room for thermal expansion and should be protected from exposure
to fire and temperatures that exceed design limits. Long pipe runs should be sloped, with
drainage provided at the low points.
Available piping materials include steel and other products such as fibreglass reinforced
plastic pipe. Steel piping as specified by the NFC, 1990 and the AFC, 1992 is the
preferred construction material. However, when chemical characteristics of the stored
liquid are incompatible with steel, more suitable piping material should be used. All
piping associated with AST's are subject to internal pressures. As such, the material
should conform to one of the following specifications for carbon steels:
1. American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASTM) A53, "Pipe, Steel, Black and
Hot-Dipped, Zinc Coated Welded and Seamless".
2. ASTM A 106, "Seamless Carbon Steel Pipe for High Temperature Service".
3. ASTM A 134, "Pipe, Steel, Electric-Fashion (Arc) - Welded (Sizes NPS 16 and
over).
4. ASTM 139, "Electric-Fusion (Arc) - Welded Steel Pipes (NPS in 4" and over).
5. ASMT 333, "Seamless and Welded Steel Pipe for Low Temperature Service".
6. ASTM 524, "Seamless Carbon Steel Pipe for Atmospheric and Lower Temperatures".
7. ASTM 671, "Electric-Fusion-Welded Steel Pipe for Atmospheric and Lower
Temperatures".
8. API Specifications 5 L, "Specification for Line Pipe", (Grades A and B only).
The American National Standard Institute (ANSI) has published Standard 1331.3, and
applies to most piping encountered at industry facilities. As indicated by ANSI Standard
1331.3, pipe joints should be either welded or flanged, with threaded joints and fittings
avoided. In addition, joints should preferably be butt welded, with flange use restricted
to joints where a removable joint is necessary. Because of their superior strength, welded
neck flanges are preferred over other flange types. Flange bolts are to be consistent in
strength and material with system design requirements.

4.2.3 Pumps
In general, pumps designed to pump products to and from AST's should conform to API
specifications, which in turn reference American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) standards. Common characteristics of pumps used within the petroleum
industry include fire resistance, steel construction, and ability to withstand excessive
pressure and a wide variety of chemical products.
4.3 Fire Protection
The type of fire protection that is developed will vary depending on the nature of the plant, its
size and its complexity. Fire protection at small operating facilities such as batteries, may be
limited to fire extinguishers, and daily inspections by the operator. Large plant sites however,
may have a full time fire chief and one or more full time firemen supervising assigned fire
crews. These full time crews perform fire protection inspections, maintenance, training, conduct
gas tests and issue hot work permits.
Prior to employing any forms of fire control and/or fire extinguishing practices, fire prevention
techniques as outlined within fire codes and mentioned in Section 3.7, should be followed. Fire
codes such as the NFC, 1990 and AFC, 1992, are primarily concerned with tank spacing
specifications. The spacing may include separation requirements between tanks and/or
minimum setback distances from on-site buildings or property lines. For a review of tank
spacing and setback requirements refer to Section 3.0 of this document. In addition to facility
layout, the use of fire resistant construction materials also aids in fire prevention.
Fire fighting agents useful in fighting fires in and around AST's containing petroleum products
include water, foams, dry chemicals, and halogenated hydrocarbons.
Water serves as a cooling, quenching, smothering, emulsifying, diluting and displacing agent.
Water has the greatest heat absorbing quality of any common material and usually is the most
abundant. It is useful in cooling equipment, structures, and tank shells. This cooling effect
prevents or reduces heat damage and potential pressure build-up. When properly applied in
spray form, water is suitable for extinguishing fires of liquid hydrocarbon fuels having a flash
point above 38EC. Water can be used effectively to control, but not extinguish fires of low flash
point fuels.
Foams are an aggregate of gas filled bubbles that will float on the surface of a flammable liquid.
Foams are used principally to form a cohesive floating blanket on the liquid surface,
extinguishing the fire by smothering and cooling the fuel. In addition, foams prevent re-ignition
by averting formation of combustible mixtures of vapour and air. Foams are suited particularly
for extinguishing two dimensional flammable liquid fires that involve spills. Foams are not
suitable for extinguishing fires from flammable gases nor liquids containing large amounts of
liquified petroleum gas (LPG). There are a number of different foams which, as specified by
API Publication 2021, "Guide for Fighting Fires in and Around Petroleum Storage Tanks", are
suitable for fighting AST associated fires. They include the following:

1. Protein Air Foam

2. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam
3. High Expansion Foam
4. Chemical Foams
Dry chemicals are recognized for their efficiency in extinguishing fires involving flammable
liquids. Dry chemicals are used frequently to extinguish floating roof tank seal fires. They are
also effective on small spill fires and on fires involving jet fuel. There are several types of dry
chemicals available. They include:
1. Sodium Bicarbonate
2. Potassium Bicarbonate
3. Potassium Chloride
4. Potassium Carbonate
5. Potassium Sulphate
6. Monammonium Phosphate
Halogenated hydrocarbons are fully halogenated methane derivatives. They are colourless,
odourless, electrically nonconductive, and commonly referred to as halons. In principle, they
attack fires by chemical inhibition and are particularly effective in dealing with flammable liquid
or gas fires.
An important aspect of fire protection often overlooked, is the design and operation of refinery
sewer systems. Inadequately designed sewer systems are in themselves potential fire hazards
and can contribute to the spread of fires. Some important aspects to be considered when
designing facility sewer systems are; capacity, location of sealed catch basins, frequency of
sealed manholes, sewer vents and building floor drums.
4.4 Drainage
The design of the site drainage system at a petroleum product storage site should include
provisions for both run-on and run-off control. Run-on control involves grading or constructing
berms and/or ditches around the perimeter of the site in order to prevent surface run-off from
adjacent properties from migrating onto the site. This provides the following two benefits:
1. Onsite sewers, ditches and treatment facilities are not sized for excessive flows.
2. The potential for contaminants to migrate onto the site is reduced. This is especially important
in areas where adjacent properties are used for industrial purposes.
Run-off control involves collecting run-off from the site, and making provision for testing
and/or treatment prior to being released off-site. As such, it typically involves the installation
of a collection pond and/or some form of treatment system.

Two different drainage systems should be provided at petroleum product storage sites - a clean
drain system and a potentially contaminated drain system. The clean drain system collects run-
off from areas which are not exposed to product spills. These areas may include the following:
1. Administration building and surrounding area.

2. Employee parking lot.
3. Main facility access road.
Ditches are often used for the clean drain system. This is particularly true for battery sites and
refineries as they are often located in rural areas. However, in urban areas where storm sewers
are present, the clean drainage system may consist of catch basins and storm sewers tied into the
municipal or local storm sewer. Retention of the run-off from the clean drain system is not
normally provided and hence, this stream is usually directly released off-site.
Clean drain systems are generally sized using the Rational Method for computing surface run-off
during a significant rainfall event. The Rational Method is based on the following formula:
Q = 0.00278CiA
where Q = Flow rate (m3/s)

C = Run-off coefficient
i = Rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
A = Area draining to the sewer or ditch (ha)
Typical run-off coefficients which can be used in carrying out the Rational Method calculations
are as follows:
1. Metal Roofs/Tanks - 0.95

2. Asphalt or Concrete Surfaces - 0.90
3. Gravelled Areas - 0.15
4. Landscaped Areas - 0.10
Rainfall intensities are normally calculated for the 1:5 or 1:10 year storm. These intensities
should be determined from local records. Drainage areas are calculated from local topographical
maps or grading plans.
The potentially contaminated drain system typically collects run-off from areas which could
experience spills from tankage, piping, pumps etc. These areas could include:
1. Areas inside tank berms.

2. Pump stations.
3. Pipe racks.
4. Roads within the process area.

Drainage within potentially contaminated areas is collected in either ditches or storm sewers.
Ditches are typically used for tank farms and roads, whereas sewers are used in process areas
and within buildings. Consideration should be given to installing synthetic (e.g. HDPE) or clay
liners in ditches to minimize the potential infiltration of contaminants.
Sewer systems for potentially contaminated areas should be designed to accommodate the larger
of the following flows:
1. Surface run-off (calculated from the Rational Method as above) plus any process water which
may be used. Process water flows will typically be encountered in gas plants and refineries.
2. Fire fighting flows. Typical fire fighting flow rates for various oil and gas facilities are as
follows:
a) Batteries = 0 - 2,000 Lpm

b) Gas plants = 5,000 - 10,000 Lpm
c) Refineries = 5,000 - 20,000 Lpm
d) Distribution Facilities = 4,000 - 10,000 Lpm
Other items which should be considered in the design of sewers for potentially contaminated
areas are as follows:
a) Materials selection should consider chemical incompatibilities with the liquids which
may be discharged to the sewer, as well as the temperature of the streams which may
be discharged. Normally steel, ductile iron and concrete are suitable materials, while
plastics such as PVC and HDPE are not.
b) Potential corrosion of the sewers should be considered. Cathodic protection and
liners/coatings should be considered on a site specific basis. Reference should be
made to Section 3.3 for further discussion on cathodic protection.
c) Manholes or clean-outs should be located at bends. In addition, distances between
manholes should not exceed 130 m to allow for cleaning.
d) Liquid seals should be provided in manholes downstream of process areas to prevent
hydrocarbon vapours from backing up into the process areas and presenting a fire
hazard.
e) Sewers should be vented, again to prevent the build-up of potentially explosive
hydrocarbon vapours.
f) Sewers should discharge to either a retention pond or an oil water separator prior to
being released off-site. Retention ponds should be sized to provide adequate sediment
and hydrocarbon removal. In some cases, retention ponds are sized to retain one year
of run-off from the facility. Pond water is then tested, and released on an annual
basis. Retention ponds should be equipped with a liner (either clay or synthetic) to
minimize contaminant migration. In addition, the installation of groundwater
monitoring wells or piezometers around the ponds should be considered. Retention
ponds should also be located where they will not create a fire hazard or any risk to
public health or safety by potentially contaminating potable water sources and/or
underground streams or waterways.

The use of oil/water separators for the treatment of potentially contaminated run-off is quite
common at petroleum product storage facilities. Typical design criteria are as follows:
1. Designed to produce a discharge of water that does not contain more than 15 mg/L of oil and
grease.
2. Sized for a hydraulic flow rate of a 10 year return, 1 hour storm event.
3. Designed for an oil with a specific gravity of 0.90.
4. Designed to capture a spill of petroleum product having a volume equal to the amount of
petroleum product transferred in 2 minutes at the highest pumping rate normally used with
the area draining to the separator.
5. Designed based on the hydraulic retention time required to separate oil with a particle droplet
size of 60 microns from stormwater.
In general, petroleum product storage facilities should not be located in flood-plains and/or areas
prone to high water levels. Ideally, they are to be located in areas where site grades are well
above groundwater levels. This is not always possible however. In instances where water tables
are high, there is an increased concern for potential groundwater contamination. Several
methods can be used to reduce the risk of contaminating groundwaters. Two such methods
include the construction of a surface perimeter ditch or subsurface drainage. These methods are
illustrated in Figures 14 and 15 respectively.
The installation of a perimeter ditch serves to intercept groundwater and helps to confine any
released petroleum products. Once confined, water treatment procedures should be initiated.
If required, the level in the ditch can be depressed slightly to induce seepage into the ditch.
Subsurface drainage is an alternative to the construction of a perimeter ditch. This method
slightly depresses the water table by sub-drainage inside a cut-off wall surrounding the site.
Petroleum production, refining and storage sites are often located along accessible waterways
so as to minimize transportation costs. In these cases, facility design and operational
requirements must be carefully considered to reduce the potential for product spills.



4.5 Secondary Containment
As previously noted, secondary containment systems may consist of either a dyke or berm
constructed around the AST(s), or a secondary containment tank or device constructed as a
component of the AST. Irregardless, their purpose is to prevent the spread of spilled or released
petroleum products. General requirements for secondary containment systems include the
capability of confining spills within a limited area and preventing any subsurface contamination.
Secondary containment systems allow for the removal and recovery of the product spill.
If AST's having individual secondary containments are used, they should conform to design and
construction standards outlined within the ULC - S653, "Standard for Aboveground Steel
Contained Tank Assemblies for Flammable and Combustible Liquids". Tank assemblies of this
nature consist of primary tanks within steel containments having capacities no less than 110%
of the nominal capacity of the primary tank. Additional specifications for contained tank
assemblies include a nominal steel floor plate thickness not being less than 6 mm, if the
underside of the containment is less than 100 mm from or in contact with the ground. If the
floor plate of the containment is supported however, then nominal thickness of containment
floors and walls are to be determined in accordance with Table 7.0
Table 7.0
Secondary Containment Minium Steel Thickness
As Determined by Primary Tank Size
Primary Tank Nominal Containment Minimum Nominal

Capacity (L) Steel Thickness (mm)
250,000.00 3.0
500,000.00 4.50
2,500,000.00 9.00
Additional requirements for secondary containments of this nature include that they be designed
to prevent the entry of precipitation or other debris between the primary and secondary tank. In
addition, secondary tanks should be leak tight in the area considered to be within the minimum
storage capacity.
Secondary containment systems involving a primary and secondary containment tank have not
been utilized a great deal within industry. Rather, the construction of dykes and berms with
impermeable barriers are the most common method of secondary containment systems.
Dykes and berms can be constructed from materials including earth, concrete, steel, solid
masonry or a compatible synthetic membrane.
Concrete barriers are to be designed and installed based upon good engineering practices so that
they meet expected loads without fracture. Expansion joints should be located at least every 6
m and be sealed with a compatible sealant.

Steel barriers should be no less than 4.5 mm thick and be protected from corrosion by any
number of approved methods.
Clay barriers shall be installed in accordance with good engineering practices. As such, they
should not be constructed in arid or semi-arid environments. Clay materials used should be
homogeneous and uniformly applied throughout the barrier. In addition, they should be a
minimum of 300 mm thick, chemically compatible with native or cover soils and be covered
with a minimum of 300 mm of material to prevent dry-out.
Irregardless of the chosen barrier material, all secondary containment barriers should be graded
so as to allow liquid collection within the interstitial space, and have a permeability to water less
than 1.0 x 10-6 cm/s under a hydraulic head of 3 m. In addition, specifics such as clearance,
containment capacity, construction, access and dyke wall height should be addressed as outlined
in Section 3.5.
For AST's having nominal capacities of 150,000 L or more, clearance distances between a tank
wall and the centre line of a dyke should not be less than 3 m or 2 the height of the AST above
the top of the dyke, whichever is greater. This is illustrated in Figure 16.0. When tank
capacities are less than 150,000 L the required clearance distance may be 1.5 m or less, as
permitted by the local fire authority.
If only one AST is located inside a dyked area, the capacity of the dyked area should be at least
110% of the nominal capacity of the AST. If two or more tanks are contained within the dyked
area, then the area should be of sufficient size to hold a volume of liquid not less than 100% of
the largest tank plus 10% of the aggregate volume of the other tanks or 110% of the largest tank,
whichever is greater.
No openings are permitted in dyke walls. Where piping must pass through the dykes, sleeves
which prevent seepage from the dyked area must be installed. Culverts are normally installed
to permit draining of the dyked area. Valves must be installed on these culverts to contain run-
off, and should be located outside of the berm such that they can be opened and closed in the
event of a spill or a fire.
Earthen dykes should have flat tops not less than 600 mm wide, a height no less than 600 mm
and a slope consistent with the angle of repose for the construction material. Some common
angles of repose for various materials are listed in Table 8.0
Free access to AST's, and associated equipment is an important aspect of design layout. As
such, dyke wall heights should not exceed 1.8 m above the ground level within the dyked area.
If however, circumstances such as potential flooding necessitate higher walls, then provisions
facilitating access are required. These provisions are necessary to aid fire fighting practices if
required.


It is recommended that the dyked containment area be graded to a sump or low lying area
(within the dyked area) to allow for the collection of precipitation and any possible spills or
leakages. Pending the degree of contamination, treatment prior to on-site release or off-site
treatment and disposal may be required.
Commonly tested parameters and considerations prior to any releases of water to adjacent lands
are as follows:
1. Chloride content <500 mg/L.

2. pH = 6.0-9.0.
3. No visible hydrocarbon sheen.
4. No other chemical contamination.
5. Landowner consent.
6. Water must not be able to flow directly into any watercourse.
7. Each release must be recorded with respect to, release date, test data and estimated volume.
In terms of the selection and design of impervious barriers, the amount of precipitation and the
severity of temperature extremes are the most important climatic parameters. Impermeable
barriers are designed to trap precipitation as well as spills, overfills and leaks. As such, in areas
of high precipitation if AST pads or foundations are not sufficiently elevated and drained,
increased moisture on the tank underside may cause accelerated corrosion. In contrast, in very
dry and hot areas, the use of clay or bentonite may not be effective, as these materials tend to
dry out, crack and leak.
Secondary containment does not strictly apply to AST's but also includes any associated
underground piping. It is recommended that any underground piping having a nominal diameter
of up to 75 mm, have secondary containment. If secondary containment is not provided, the site
should be precision leak tested every two years, commencing after the fifth year of operation.

Table 8.0
Angle of Repose of Various Materials
(Redrawn from Caterpillar Performance Handbook 16th Edition)
Material Angle Between Horizontal and Slope of Heaped Pile

Ratio Degrees
500,000.00
Dry 2.8:1 - 1.0:1 20-45
Moist 2.1:1 - 1.0:1 25-45
Wet 2.1:1 - 1.7:1 25-30
Gravel
Round to Angular 1.7:1 - 0.9:1 30-50
Sand and Clay 2.8:1 - 1.4:1 20-35
Sand
Dry 2.8:1 - 1.7:1 20-30
Moist 1.8:1 - 1.0:1 30-45
2,500,000.00 2.8:1 - 1.0:1 9.00

5.0 CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION
Requirements for the construction and installation of AST's can be broken down into the
following areas:
1. Welding of tanks, piping, structural steel, etc.

2. Earthworks (i.e. tank pads, earth berms and dykes, site grading and excavation and backfilling
of underground piping).
3. Concrete placement (for concrete berms, dykes and foundations).
4. Synthetic liner placement.
5. Cathodic protection systems.
Specific requirements for the individual areas are presented in the following sections:
5.1 Welding
Generally, aboveground storage tanks and their attachments (i.e. nozzles, piping, man-ways,
platforms and stairways) are to be welded by a certified welder using any one or a combination
of the following techniques:
1. Shielded metal-arc
2. Gas metal-arc
3. Gas tungsten-arc
4. Oxyfuel
5. Flux-cored arc
6. Submerged arc
7. Electroslag
8. Electrogas
In order to ensure complete fusion of welded surfaces, no welding of any kind should be
performed when the surfaces are wet from any form of precipitation or during periods of rain,
snow or high winds unless the welder and work are properly shielded. In addition, when the
temperature of the base metal is less than 0EF(-18EC) no welding of any kind should take place.
If the base metal temperature is between 0EF(-18EC) and 32EF (0EC), or the thickness is <13
inches, then the base metal within 3" of the welding origin shall be heated to a temperature that
is warm to the touch. Another common practice that must be enforced so as to achieve complete
fusion, is the cleaning of metal surfaces prior to any welding. Other general welding details,
outlined within API Standard 650, include specifications on maximum reinforcement weld
thicknesses and tack weld requirements.
Reinforcement welds on butt joints of each side of the plate shall not exceed the thicknesses
outlined in Table 9.0

Table 9.0
Maximum Reinforcement Thickness on Butt Welds
Plate Thickness (inches) Maximum Reinforcement Thickness (inches)

Vertical Joints Horizontal Joints
3 1
#2 /32 /8
1 3
>2 to 1 /8 /16
3
>1 /16 3
During welding operations, tack welds are commonly used to hold plates in close contact and
in position until complete welds are made. These tack welds are not to remain in the finished
joints unless they are sound and are thoroughly fused into the subsequently applied weld beads.
If such is the case, they need only be cleared of all welding slag. Additional welding
requirements for tank bottoms, shells and roofs outlined in API 650 are not within the scope of
this guideline. As such, API 650 should be consulted prior to any AST construction.
5.2 Earthworks
Specific inspection and testing related to the construction of the site grading and any
underground piping and earth foundations or berms which may be required, is as follows:
1. Grain size analysis to ensure that:

a) soil being used for berm construction and liners contains the correct amount of clay.
b) soil being used for pipe bedding and drainage systems contains the correct sizes and
percentages of gravel.
c) sand being used for synthetic liner bedding does not contain excessive amounts of
coarse fragments.
2. Compaction testing to ensure that:

a) pipe trench backfill does not settle.
b) earthen berms achieve their desired permeability.
c) fill placed under tanks does not settle.
3. Surveying and grade checks to ensure that drainage patterns are correct and that berms are
constructed to provide the required secondary containment volume.
5.3 Concrete Construction
Inspections and testing during the construction of concrete dykes and tank foundations should
include the following:
1. Compressive strength on cylinders cast during concrete placement. These tests are carried out
to ensure that the concrete placed meets the required strength specifications.

2. Concrete slump tests during pouring, to ensure that the concrete being placed does not contain
excessive amounts of water.
3. Air content tests during pouring for sites which experience cold weather. Air content between
4 and 6% is required to provide resistance against freeze-thaw conditions.
5.4 Synthetic Liners
Tests on synthetic liners used for spill containment should include the following:
1. Laboratory tests on the material to ensure that it has the required thickness, tensile strength
and chemical characteristics.
2. Pressure tests on seams.
3. Peel and tensile tests on seam samples.
4. Visual inspections to ensure that tears and/or holes are not present in the liner panels.
5.5 Cathodic Protection
Impressed current systems should be tested following installation to ensure that they are
functioning, and imparting the required surface potential to the tank and/or piping system.
5.6 Commissioning
Prior to the commissioning of an AST it must be subjected to an inspection. This inspection is

not merely a one time event, but rather a continuous process throughout the entire construction
period. During this period, the inspection ensures, among other details, that the quality of welds
are satisfactory. This is normally carried out using a combination of visual observations and the
radiographic method. For a detailed description of the procedures involved with the
radiographic method, reference to API 620, should be made.
Leak inspection methods for tank bottom welds include the application of air pressure or
vacuum to the joints and a soap film, linseed oil or other suitable material that will reveal the
presence of leaks. Upon construction completion, reinforcement plates are subjected to
pneumatic pressure leak tests of up to 15 lbs/in. After passing these tests, the entire tank is put
through a complete leak test. If sufficient water is available this involves that the tank be filled
as follows:
1. To the maximum design liquid level.

2. For a tank with a tight roof, to 2" above the weld connecting the roof plate or compression
bar to the top angle or shell.
3. To a level lower than that specified in 1 and 2 when restricted by overflows, an interval
floating roof, or other freeboard design.
During the filling operation the tank should be frequently examined for any signs of leakage.

Alternative leak inspection methods when sufficient water is not available, include any one of
the following techniques:
1. Painting all of the joints on the inside with a highly penetrating oil, such as automobile spring
oil, and carefully examining the outside for leakage.
2. Applying vacuum to either side of the joints and a soap solution to reveal any potential leaks.

6.0 AST OPERATIONS
6.1 Filling and Emptying Procedures
The majority of spills associated with AST's are caused by overfilling. During tank filling
procedures, if the liquid level is not closely monitored, potential product losses may occur
through the tank vents. Generally, spills of this nature are contained by secondary containment
systems thereby minimizing any potential subsurface contamination. If the frequency or volume
of spills are large enough, there is an increased probability of product percolation and
subsequent groundwater contamination. As such, caution is to be exercised during all filling
and emptying procedures.
In limiting or controlling spills of this nature a number of potential solutions exist. They include
the following:
1. Close monitoring of the filling procedure.

2. The use of audible high liquid level alarms to warn operators when the liquid level is nearing
its maximum limit.
3. A fill level alarm connected to a pump control.
The above liquid level monitoring systems are all suitable for preventing spills due to tank
overfills. Depending on the type of facility however, some are better suited than others. For a
review of typical liquid level monitors refer to section 3.8
System design features, such as check valves and control valves, also limit product losses due
to spills associated with tank filling and emptying.
Water drain valves, used to drain accumulated water in tank bottoms, are also sources of
potential product loss. Water is drained from AST's on a regular basis, depending on humidity
and other atmospheric conditions. This operation requires constant attention given that once the
tank has been drained free of water, the product stored begins to drain. Water drainage can be
a lengthy process, varying from two hours to two days. As such, close monitoring of this
operation is essential.
6.2 Corrosion Protection Monitoring
Corrosion is the prime cause of deterioration of steel storage tanks and associated piping.
Corrosion control techniques and technologies such as cathodic protection, mentioned earlier
in Section 3.3, are merely methods of control and not means of preventing corrosion.
Irregardless of the preventative measures taken during the design and fabrication of an AST,
corrosion will undoubtly impact the tank at some point in time. The delay of this however, can
be maximized by not only the implementation of corrosion protection techniques, but also by
the monitoring of such techniques.

Many maintenance check procedures for determining satisfactory degrees of cathodic protection
for AST's have been provided within API RP651, "Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Storage
Tanks". In addition, the ULC and CCPI have published standards and guidelines that focus on
cathodic protection of AST's and any underground piping. According to these publications, for
cathodic protection to be considered adequate on AST's, a surface potential of at least -850 mV
on all parts of the tank bottom must be achieved. However, on large diameter AST's, for the
centre of the tank to reach -850 mV, the potential at the outer edge may have to be somewhat
higher. Consequently, it is recommended that a corrosion expert determine the appropriate
surface potential for the perimeter of the AST.
Perhaps the easiest and most economical method of corrosion monitoring are regular scheduled
inspections. The frequency of inspections should never exceed one month. Considering
influences such as surrounding environmental conditions, tank age and history the inspection
frequency may be increased. These inspections, while only surficial are thorough in that
observations focus not only on corrosion but any signs of leakage, distortions, settlement and
wear.
More extensive and elaborate inspections should be conducted every fifth year or at the quarter
corrosion rate life of the tank shell, which ever is less. At this time, previously mentioned
cathodic protection system surveys should be performed and tank grounding system components
checked. In order to determine the rate of uniform general corrosion on the tank shell, external
ultrasonic thickness measurements are to be performed at this time. If the tank is temporarily
out of service, an internal inspection can be substituted for the program of external ultrasonic
thickness measurements.
External ultrasonic thickness measurements are extremely useful in assessing tank shell
corrosion rates but cannot gather the data necessary for minimum bottom and shell thickness
assessments. For this internal inspections are required.
Intervals between internal inspections will be governed by the measured or anticipated corrosion
rates and the calculations for minimum required thickness of tank bottoms. The actual
inspection interval should be set to ensure that the bottom plate minimum thicknesses at the next
inspection are not less than the values listed in Table 10.0. In no case should the internal
inspection interval exceed 20 years.
Table 10.0
Bottom Plate Minimum Thickness
(from API Standard 653)
Minimum Bottom Plate Thickness Tank Bottom/Foundation Design

at Next Inspection (inches)
0.10 With no means of a bottom leak detection and containment of a bottom leak.
0.05 With means to provide detection and containment of a bottom leak.
0.05 Applied tank bottom in reinforced lining, >0.05" thick, in accordance with API RP-652.

6.3 Inventory Control
Storage tanks should be regularly inspected for leaks in order to minimize or prevent economic
loss, hazard to personnel, contamination of subsoils, groundwater or surface waters and damage
to other equipment.
Leaks are normally the result of corrosion but can occur at improperly welded or riveted joints,
at threaded or gasketted pipe connections or cover plates, or as a result of cracks in welds or the
steel. Inspections performed throughout the fabrication of an AST should recognize and rectify
any potential problems before their arrival. As such, most spills and leaks are caused by careless
operational procedures and/or natural material and equipment deterioration.
Many forms of mechanical deterioration can develop during the life of an AST. If such
deterioration is discovered early enough, it can be repaired and spills and product losses
prevented. To aid in the monitoring of mechanical deterioration many practices and devices
have been developed and employed. They range from being as simple as maintaining accurate
records of product volumes to complex leak detection systems such as those implemented for
monitoring tank bottoms.
Maintaining accurate records of volumes during product transfers and tank levels can be used
to identify leakage. If product losses are noticed, they should be investigated quickly and
appropriate actions taken.
Indications of a potential leak or discharge are as follows:
1. Any unexplained loss of 1.0% or more of throughput in one month from an AST as indicated
by the recording and reconciliation of inventory records.
2. Inventory reconciliations showing four or more consecutive weeks of unexplained product
losses.
3. Inventory reconciliation showing an unexplained loss in one calender month.
6.4 Control and Discharge of Impounded Rain Water
Spills associated with product transfers are usually small and accumulate directly under transfer
points. During times of precipitation, storm run-off water collected within dyked areas around
the transfer pumps has a tendency to solubilize past product spills. As such, the oil
contaminated storm run-off water must be contained, treated and disposed of in accordance with
applicable local regulations, guidelines or policies. Suggested quality criteria for the release of
accumulated storm run-off water to adjacent lands are presented in Section 4.5.
Depending on the degree of contamination, the collected run-off water may require treatment
prior to being released. One form of treatment would be to transfer the oil contaminated water
to an oil/water separator. These are also referenced in Section 4.5.

6.5 Spill Response
Owners of AST's should prepare and maintain emergency response and contingency plans.
These plans should contain procedures for contacting authorities having jurisdiction, and
programs for stopping, cleaning up and mitigating potential impacts.
Not all spills warrant the notification of authorities. For instance, according to the CCME the
owner/operator is obligated to notify the authority having jurisdictions only when anticipated
product volume spills exceed 100 L or when the leak or spill reasonably threatens fresh water
supplies, groundwater, or the health and safety of the public.
Upon contacting the authorities of a leak or spill, the owner in conjunction with the authority
having jurisdiction, is required to verify, stop, clean-up and mitigate the impacts of the leak or
spill. This includes but is not limited to the following requirements:
1. Arrange for immediate removal of the petroleum product from the isolated leaking
components of the storage tank system.
2. Inspect the AST, conduct a leak test, or remove the storage tank.
3. Take all reasonable steps to establish the extent of contamination, contain the leaked
petroleum, and prevent its further migration.
4. Take all reasonable steps to recover or remove escaped petroleum products.
Should the spill or release be less than 100 L, it remains in the owners/operators best interests
to follow similar remedial response procedures as listed above.
6.6 Soil and Groundwater Monitoring
Soil and groundwater monitoring may be carried out around AST's as a means of determining
whether or not the AST's are impacting local soil and groundwater quality. Points to consider
in designing and implementing a soil and/or groundwater monitoring program are as follows:
1. Background samples should be taken as a means of assessing whether or not contamination

has occurred.
2. Samples should be taken down gradient of potential sources of contamination.
3. Sample depths should be based on the depth at which contamination is likely to be present.
4. Parameters to be analyzed in samples should be based on the types of contaminants which are
likely to be present. Parameters to be considered for different types of petroleum storage
facilities are as follows:
a) Batteries - extractable hydrocarbons, metals, sterilants and salts.
b) Gas plants - purgeable and extractable hydrocarbons, salts, sulphur, metals and
amines
c) Refineries - purgeable and extractable hydrocarbons, metals, phenols.
d) Distribution Facilities - purgeable and extractable hydrocarbons, lead.

5. Appropriate sample containers should be used depending on the type of analysis being carried
out. For example, soil samples being analyzed for hydrocarbons should be placed in glass
jars.
6. Groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers should be purged prior to sampling. This
removes any silt and/or sediment which may enter the well bore during well installation. The
volume purged should be equal to three times the volume of water present in the well at the
time of sampling.
7. Samples should be stored at 4 C while being shipped to the analytical laboratory.
8. Duplicate samples should be analyzed as a component of a quality assurance/quality control
program.
9. Groundwater levels should be measured in conjunction with obtaining samples.
10.Preservatives should be added to groundwater samples as directed by the analytical
laboratory.
6.7 Temporary Storage Facilities
Temporary storage refers to the storage of petroleum products for periods of time less than three
months.
Following temporary storage, the stored materials should be transferred to a permanent storage
facility.
Siting considerations for temporary storage facilities are as follows:
1. Readily accessible for fire fighting and other emergency procedures.

2. Not located in a floodplain.
3. Chosen so as to minimize the risk of environmental impacts to surface water and groundwater
quality.
4. Not located within 100 m of the normal high water mark of a body of water, permanent
stream, or water well used for domestic purposes.
Temporary storage facilities should have signs at the entrance of the facility indicating the
operator name, emergency phone number and legal description. Within the facility, signs should
indicate the materials that are stored, warnings and housekeeping procedures followed in the
storage area.
6.8 Recommended Inspection Program
Inspection programs will vary between sites. For example, visual inspections of AST facilities
should be conducted daily to ensure that there have been no leaks, vandalism or deterioration
of facility components. More detailed scheduled inspections are to be carried out at times as
specified in Section 3.6. During such detailed inspections, checklists of typical observations for
internal and external inspection have been outlined within API Standard 652. Representative
checklists have been provided within Appendix 1.

7.0 DECOMMISSIONING AND REMEDIATION OF SUBSURFACE CONTAMINATION
Site remediation is the process of remediating contaminated soil and groundwater through
removal, treatment and disposal techniques.
Soil and ultimately groundwater contamination has been recognized as a widespread threat to
water supplies and to the health of those who use them. Of the various organic compounds
found in groundwater, industrial solvents and aromatic hydrocarbons from petroleum products
are the most common, and much, if not most, of soil and groundwater contamination of this type
is caused by leakage and spillage of organic liquids.
The main problems connected with designing an in-situ or on-site remediation scheme for
organic compounds are a result of the often complex site geology and hydrogeology and the
mixture of many organic chemicals present within any one hydrocarbon spill. Remediation
efforts must therefore be designed to address the removal and treatment of the specific
compounds present.
This review outlines the main techniques and design parameters for in-situ and on-site physical
remediation currently being used or developed. In addition, the advantages and restrictions of
each method with respect to site conditions and contaminant chemistry is examined in the
context of selecting the most appropriate method. Since all of these methods have limitations,
they should be thoroughly evaluated before selection. At a minimum, the following questions
should be asked of the engineer/scientist responsible for the remediation program.
1. What contaminants are to be removed? Are they organic or inorganic compounds? Is the
remediation technique applicable to the removal of these contaminants?
2. Will the remediation technique be applied at the site or will soil and/or groundwater be
removed and treated in controlled environment?
3. What utilities (e.g. water, electricity, steam, natural gas) are required to facilitate the
remediation technique?
4. Are chemicals to be added to enhance the remediation process? If so, what are the impacts
of these chemicals on the environment? Will they create any future environmental problems?
5. Are micro-organisms to be used in the remediation process for the biodegradation of organic
compounds? If so, what are the by-products of the microbial degradation process? Are the
by-products potentially harmful to the environment?
6. What are the residuals (for example, wastewater, air emissions, solid wastes) generated from
the technique? How are these residuals to be managed?
7.1 Soil Remediation Techniques
Techniques for the remediation and mitigation of contaminated soils fall into the following five
general categories:
1. Physical/chemical treatment.
2. Thermal treatment.

3. Biological treatment.
4. Fixation/encapsulation.
5. Excavation and landfill disposal
7.2 Physical/Chemical Treatment
Physical/chemical treatment involves adding mechanical energy and/or chemicals to the

contaminated soil to facilitate the removal of contaminants. In general, physical and chemical
reactions are utilized in the conversion of the contaminants to more benign substances.
Examples of physical/chemical treatment techniques which have been used commercially
1. Thermal Stripping
This process involves heating the contaminated soils to 275-500EF to volatilize the
hydrocarbon product (e.g. benzene, toluene, etc.). While it can be carried out in-situ, it is
more easily performed in a tank. The technique is applicable to soils that have low
concentrations of organic compounds which are highly volatile and are insoluble in water.
Since this technique drives contaminants into the atmosphere, regulatory agencies may be
concerned about air pollution when licensing such a remedial program.
As an alternative to atmospheric discharge, the volatilized gas may be incinerated (at

approximately 1,400EF) to oxidize the hydrocarbon products or, the volatiles may be
condensed and the resultant liquid recovered.
2. Soils Washing
This method involves washing contaminated soils with water to remove the contaminants.
Since the technique requires a tank, the contaminated soil must be excavated and transferred
to the treatment facility. The main problem with this technique results from waste water at
the end of the process that must be treated and released. This technique merely converts a
soil contamination problem to a water contamination problem. The technique is suitable for
soils contaminated with organic and inorganic compounds. It is more effective on sandy soils
than on silts and clays, due to the affinity of many chemicals to silts and clays.
This method is generally used to remove salts from soils, typically by fresh water in
conjunction with calcium amendment (e.g. gypsum, calcium nitrate, lime). However, this
method may also be used to remove organic contaminants that have low viscosity and are
more readily dissolved by water.
3. Vacuum Extraction
This method involves applying a vacuum to the contaminated soil to draw off highly volatile
organic compounds. The method can be carried out in-situ, but is more easily performed on
a prepared bed or in a tank. As in thermal stripping, the contaminants are transferred from
the soil to the air. Problems with regulatory approval of this technique may be encountered.

4. Neutralization
This technique is suitable for soils contaminated by acids or alkalis. It involves adding either
an acid to an alkali, or vice versa, resulting in neutralization of the contaminated soils. The
technique can be carried out in-situ but is more easily performed in a controlled environment
(e.g. tank). A potential problem with this technique is a chemical reaction between the waste
and the treatment chemical that may form even more toxic or hazardous components.
5. Oxidation/Reduction
This technique involves adding chemicals to either oxidize or reduce contaminants in the soil.
The contaminants are hence transformed into harmless chemicals. Oxidation can be used to
remove cyanide and organic chemicals from the soil. Reduction may be used for the removal
of chromium, silver and mercury. The technique can be carried out at the site but is more
easily performed in a controlled environment (e.g. tank). However, explosive reactions and
toxic and hazardous by-products resulting from chemical reactions have been encountered.
7.2.1 Thermal Treatment
Thermal treatment involves adding heat to alter the chemical structure of the
contaminants. Examples of thermal treatment processes are:
1. Incineration
The well known process of incineration involves adding large amounts of heat to
burn contaminated soil. It is very effective in removing halogenated organics (e.g.
PCB's), assuming that sufficiently high temperatures are realized. However,
incineration is costly from a capital and operating cost perspective. Problems
associated with incineration include disposal of ash and air emissions (e.g.
particulates, metals and products of incomplete combustion).
2. Pyrolysis
This process involves the slow addition of heat at temperatures lower than
incineration for the purpose of organic recovery (e.g. oil). Pyrolysis has had limited
use due to the variable composition of contaminated soils. While pyrolysis has
environmental advantages from a resource recovery perspective, its technical
problems have limited use in site remediation.
7.2.2 Biological Treatment
Biological treatment involves the degradation of contaminants in the soil through the
action of micro-organisms (e.g. bacteria, fungi, viruses) that are either present in the soil
or added to enhance degradation. Keys to the success of a biological treatment technique
1. A sufficient population of micro-organisms to degrade the contaminants must be

present.

2. Sufficient nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus to support the growth of the
micro-organisms must be present.
3. The soil cannot contain any substances which are toxic to the micro-organisms.
4. The soil must be at a temperature suitable for microbial growth.
Problems encountered with biological treatment include an inability to cultivate micro-

organisms that can degrade the contaminants, and the creation of toxic and/or hazardous
by-products through microbial degradation.
There are two major types of biological treatment techniques:
1. Aerobic Treatment
Involves the degradation of contaminants under aerobic conditions, i.e. in the
presence of oxygen by aerobic bacteria. This method can be carried out in a
controlled environment such as a tank or in-situ. The process where contaminated
soil is cultivated into clean soils by use of the microbial degradation process, is
known as land application or landfarming.
2. Anaerobic Treatment
Anaerobic treatment is carried out by anaerobic bacteria in the absence of oxygen.
The time required for treatment is longer than that for aerobic treatment. In addition,
degradation under anaerobic conditions often results in odour problems such as
hydrogen sulphide gas.
7.2.3 Fixation/Encapsulation
In fixation/encapsulation, contaminants are made motionless within a matrix so that they

cannot escape into the environment. Matrices used most often include cement, concrete
and lime.
Fixation/encapsulation is usually used for soils contaminated with metals. The end
product (i.e. the fixated waste) is typically placed in a landfill, although fixated wastes
may be used as a construction material.
7.2.4 Excavation and Landfill Disposal
The simplest method to remediate the contaminated site is to excavate contaminated

material and to dispose of it at a landfill without further treatment. This method is often
used for wastes which do not contain high levels of contaminants. Most jurisdictions
place restrictions on the types of wastes which can be placed in a landfill. It is therefore
essential that appropriate regulatory authorities be approached prior to shipping untreated
contaminated soil to a landfill.

Table 11.0 depicts the soil remediation options presented and summarizes their
application, costs, time requirements, location (in-situ, on/off-site) options, equipment
requirements and, pros and cons.
7.3 Groundwater Remediation Techniques
Over the past decade remediation of organically contaminated groundwater and aquifers has
become one of the most important fields in hydrogeology. The main problems connected with
designing in-situ or on-site groundwater remediation schemes are a result of the often complex
geology and hydrogeology, and the mixture of many organic chemicals present within any one
hydrocarbon spill. Remediation efforts must be designed to address the removal and treatment
of the specific compounds present. Hence the review of the main technologies and design
parameters for in-situ and on-site physical remediation and treatment methods currently being
used or developed must consider transport mechanisms for the specific contaminants being
remediated. The advantages and restrictions of each method with respect to site conditions and
contaminant chemistry is examined in the context of indications as to the choice of most
appropriate methods.
7.3.1 Transport Mechanisms
The dominant contaminants of concern with regard to storage tank spills and leakage are
non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL's), specifically hydrocarbon compounds.
NAPLs are defined as existing as a separate fluid phase in an aqueous environment i.e.
are immiscible in water. However NAPLs are rarely truly immiscible in water and, due
to their limited solubility, aqueous dissolved phases do exist. Therefore, an
understanding of the transport and dissolution of NAPLs is necessary if cost effective
techniques for control and clean-up of these contaminants are to be achieved.
In considering the transport of NAPLs in the subsurface environment, density and

viscosity differences relative to water are of prime importance. LNAPLs (light NAPLs)
are less dense than water, whereas DNAPLs (dense NAPLs) are NAPLs with densities
greater than water. Once released into the subsurface, the migration of the NAPL is
affected by the characteristics of the release scenario (volume of release, area of
infiltration, duration), properties of both the NAPL and subsurface material, and the
subsurface flow conditions. Migration and dissolution of NAPLs and the subsequent
transport of dissolved constituents by moving groundwater is thought to generate many
of the large scale contaminant plumes seen in the subsurface. NAPL migration and the
four separate phases which they form in the subsurface are:

Table 11.0
Soil Remediation Methods Summary
Option Application Costs Time Location Equipment Flexibility
Requirements Pros Cons
1. Thermal Stripping ♦ Removal of VOC's from soils. $150-500/m3 Days to weeks On/Off-site ♦ Excavators ♦ Removal of highly volatile ♦ May be restrictions on air
♦ Where low concentrations of ♦ Tank organic compounds emissions, does not remove non-
VOC's which are highly ♦ Heat Source ♦ Can reduce air emissions volatile organics.
volatile. through use of incineration ♦ Increases cost.
♦ Where VOC's are insoluble in or condensing to recover
water hydrocarbon products.
♦ Where air emissions will not
be unacceptable
2. Soils Washing ♦ Removal of contaminants by $50-150/m3 Days to months In-situ, ♦ Excavators ♦ Can be carried out on-site or ♦ Water supply
water washing. On/Off-site ♦ Soil and water off-site. ♦ Water treatment
♦ Ideal for salt contaminated monitoring probes ♦ Suitable for organic and ♦ Water disposal
soils. ♦ Tanks inorganic contamination.
♦ Water
♦ Tile Drain ♦ Less effective in silts and clays
♦ Pumps
3. Vacuum Extraction ♦ Removal of VOC's from soils $150-1,000/m 3
Months to years In-situ ♦ Excavators ♦ Can be performed in-situ ♦ Can take months to years to
♦ In homogeneous isotropic soils On/Off-site ♦ Extraction wells without excavation of soils. remediate
♦ Soil and air H-C ♦ Removal of VOC's ♦ Air emissions and monitoring
monitoring probes
♦ Vacuum Pump
and Piping
4. Neutralization ♦ Suitable for acid or alkali $150-250/m3 Days to weeks In-situ ♦ Excavators ♦ Contaminants transformed ♦ Chemical reaction between
contaminated soils On/Off-site ♦ Soil and water into harmless chemicals treatment chemicals and waste to
monitoring probes form additional toxic or
♦ Tanks hazardous contaminants
5. Oxidation/Reduction ♦ Adding chemicals to oxidize or $150-500/m3 Days to weeks In-situ ♦ Excavators ♦ Contaminants transformed ♦ Chemical reactions between
reduce contaminants in soils. On/Off-site ♦ Chemicals into harmless chemicals. waste and oxidents/reductants
♦ Oxidation can be used to ♦ Tanks can form explosive reactions,
remove cyanide and organic ♦ Soil monitoring and produce additional toxic or
chemicals while reduction can hazardous contaminants.
be used to remove chromium,
silver and mercury.
6. Incineration ♦ Removal of severely $500/m3 Days to weeks Off-site ♦ Excavators ♦ Complete removal of ♦ Costly capital and operating
hydrocarbon contaminated soil ♦ Transportation contamination from site expenses
and PCB's. ♦ Incineration ♦ Disposal of ash and air
facility emissions
♦ Incomplete combustion
7. Pyrolysis ♦ Slow addition of heat for $500/m3 Days to weeks In-situ ♦ Excavators ♦ Carried out in-situ or off-site ♦ Costly
organic recovery On-site ♦ Soil monitoring ♦ Removal and recovery of ♦ Disposal of product
♦ Contamination products
tanks
8. Aerobic Treatment ♦ Remediation of hydrocarbon $50-300/m3 Years In-situ ♦ Excavators ♦ Cost effective ♦ Time involved to remediate soils
(landspreading, landfarming, contaminated soils. On/Off-site ♦ Monitoring ♦ Can be carried out in-situ, could be substantial.
bioreactor) ♦ Organic Nutrients on-site or off-site ♦ Toxic by products may be
produced
♦ Microbial action may be
impacted by salts, metals, and
trace organic compounds
9. Anaerobic Treatment ♦ Remediations of hydrocarbon $150-300/m3 Years In-situ ♦ Excavators ♦ Can be carried out, in-situ ♦ Remediation may be incomplete
contaminated soils. On/Off-site ♦ Monitoring on-site or off-site ♦ Toxic by-products may be
♦ Organic Nutrients ♦ Cost effective produced.
♦ Microbial action may be
impacted by salts, metals, and
trace organic compounds
♦ Odor problems such as hydrogen
sulphide gas
10. Fixation/Encapsulating ♦ Removal and encapsulation of $50-500/m3 Days to weeks Off-Site ♦ Excavators ♦ Fixated waste may be ♦ May be costly
contaminants. Contaminants ♦ Encapsulation placed in landfill or used as ♦ May not be appropriate due to
may be used as construction Fixation construction material incomparability of other
materials. Ideal where landfill associated
disposal is not available. contaminants/chemical species
11. Excavation and Landfill ♦ Simplest method to remove $50/m3 Days to weeks Off-Site ♦ Transportation ♦ Simplest remediation ♦ May be restrictions on landfill
Disposal contaminated soils and trucking ♦ Remediation method location
♦ Used for soils with high level success ♦ Appropriate for soils with ♦ May be expensive transportation
of contaminants monitoring high levels of contaminants costs
required ♦ Regulatory liaison delays
♦ Very expensive if large volumes
of soil requires remediation

1. Free Floating Product - pure compound found at (LNAPL) or below (DNAPL) the
water table.
2. Dissolved Phase - found in vadose and saturated zones in groundwater.
3. Vapour Phase - found in vadose zone.
4. Adsorbed Phase - contaminant adsorbed onto soil or rock matrix.
When a NAPL is released at (or below) the ground surface in the vadose zone, it migrates
vertically under the influences of gravity and capillary forces. When the release involves
only a small quantity of NAPL and does not meet the residual saturation needs of the soil,
the NAPL may be held in the void spaces and not reach the saturated zone except as a
result of infiltrating precipitation. The extent of such movement depends upon both the
porosity and permeability of the soil matrix. DNAPLs displace the air from the voids
while retaining a small volume of water as a wetting agent on mineral grains. As a result,
the vadose zone permeability for DNAPLs is greater than that for water because the
larger pore spaces through which the DNAPL migrates are larger than the pores through
which water, as the wetting agent, migrates. Where the quantity of NAPL exceeds the
residual saturation, the vertical migration continues to the capillary zone and the water
table. In some cases this can be rapid.
At the capillary zone the initial response by both LNAPLs and DNAPLs is the tendency
to mound. This produces a depression of the capillary zone and the water table. Buoyant
forces act to restore the water table to its initial level, and if a critical minimum thickness
of NAPL is exceeded, then lateral spreading or vertical flow occurs.
Lateral spreading occurs with LNAPLs creating an LNAPL pancake. The spreading is
initially in all directions but becomes predominant in the direction of groundwater flow.
The shape of the pancake depends upon the soil permeability, the hydraulic gradient and
the infiltration rate. High permeability soils have generally expansive pancakes of
limited thickness. Fluctuations of the water table can lead to an apparent decrease in free
product as previously uncontaminated soil adsorbs NAPL. DNAPLs move vertically by
viscous fingering with elongated stringers occupying vertically connected pores. When
the stringers have gained sufficient mass they continue to displace water in the saturated
pore spaces and move vertically. DNAPL flow is therefore to be considered as unstable.
If sufficient DNAPL is present, migration will continue through the saturated zone until
residual saturation or an impermeable layer is reached. At this point DNAPLs move
laterally due to gravitational forces and viscous drag by flowing groundwater. It is
therefore possible for DNAPLs to flow down-dip even if this is contrary to the hydraulic
gradient. However this situation has yet to be observed in the field.
In the case of fractured rock aquifers DNAPL migration is primarily through the
interconnected fractures, both in the vertical and horizontal. As a result, DNAPLs in
relatively small volumes can move far and deep into fractured aquifer systems. This is
enhanced by the small retention capacity of fractures for NAPLs. LNAPLs are of less
significance in fractured aquifers as they remain in the region of the water table which

is more often above rockhead, although the processes would be similar to DNAPLs.
Movement of NAPLs into the rock matrix, with its relatively low porosity, occurs by
diffusion by dissolved phases where it is held by adsorption. Dead-end fractures are
known to retain amounts of residual NAPL in effectively hydraulic "dead-spots".
The pools and residual NAPLs act as subsurface contamination sources for further
dissolved, vapour and adsorbed phase contamination. In the order of 1-10% of pore
volume remaining from contact with a NAPL slug can still contain pure NAPL phase.
The extent of chemical partitioning from the NAPL into the various phases depends
upon the actual compound(s) and its partition coefficient (Koc) and vapour pressure
values. The higher the Koc value of a compound the lower its mobility and solubility, and
the higher its adsorption potential in the environment. The vapour pressure is the
measure of a liquid or solid's tendency to pass into the vapour phase. The greater the
vapour pressure, the more volatile the compound. Compounds with high vapour
pressures are known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Table 12.0 contains Koc and
vapour pressure values for common NAPLs found in groundwater.
The Henry's Law constant can be applied to NAPLs in groundwater to determine their
rate of volatilisation from water. The constant measures the relationship of partial gas
pressure to the equilibrium gas concentration in solution, and the higher the value the
greater the rate of volatilisation. Table 12.0 also contains values for Henry's Law
constants.
Table 12.0
Summary of Common Organic Compound Properties
Organic Compound Partition Coefficient Vapour Pressure Henry's Law Constant

(Koc Value) (mm.Hg at 20EC) (m3 x atm/mol)
Benzene 97 76 0.00548 @ 17.5EC
Toluene 242 22 0.0067 @ 17.5EC
Xylene (ortho) 363 5 0.00527 @ 17.5EC
Naphthalene 1300 NA 0.00048 @ 17.5EC
Notes: NA - not available

(After Fetter, 1993 and 1988, and Nyer & Skladany, 1990).
Volatile NAPLs in the vapour phase move by advection through the vadose zone in the
units of higher air conductivity. NAPLs in units of low conductivity will not be
transported by advection, but rather by much slower diffusion into units of higher
conductivity. Vapours are known to move primarily in the horizontal direction controlled
by the shape of the water table and the presence of any hydraulic barriers, but vapours
less dense than air will move vertically, entering basement, sewers and other excavations.
Mounting evidence suggests that vapour migration in the vadose zone will, with

subsequent transfer of vapour phase contamination to soil-water and groundwater, cause

formation of and spread of contaminant plumes.
The dissolved phase of NAPL is generally considered to be the largest areal component.
Movement of dissolved contaminants is primarily by advection in high permeability
units, with diffusion and dispersion more important in low permeability units. NAPL
plumes in the United States and Europe have been identified over 10 km from their
source, having formed over several decades. Differentiation of NAPL components in the
dissolved phase has been observed in plumes due to the variation in retardation factors
of the species present. The least retarded and more soluble species move quicker and
further becoming separated from the more retarded species. For the same reason the
NAPL load in the aquifer cannot be judged from the area of the contaminant plume as
this is also a function of the higher solubility and mobility of some species relative to
others.
7.4 Groundwater Remediation and Treatment Techniques
In any remediation project the adopted technique and design must address two main issues. The
primary issue is the removal of the NAPL masses that are acting as both surface and subsurface
contamination sources, therefore preventing any further releases. The second part is the actual
treatment of the contaminated groundwater and remediation of aquifer material.
In-situ physical remediation relies on the basis of transporting the contaminant to the surface
either in the form of free product or by using air or water to act as a carrier for vapour and
dissolved phases. Until the mid 1980's the main method adopted was pump and treat using
conventional water treatment at the surface. However, recent years have seen new technologies
emerge as a result of innovations of existing procedures including soil vapour extraction and air
sparging.
The system adopted for remediation requires a good understanding of the mass and types of
NAPL released, the location of free product phases, the physical processes occurring in the
subsurface, the site geology and hydrogeology and the required standards for water or gas
emissions. The design depends upon all of the above but in most cases seldom are these
requirements ever met in full.
Table 13.0 depicts the groundwater remediation options that will be discussed and summarizes
their application, costs, time requirements, location (in-situ, on/off site) options, equipment
requirements, and pros and cons.
7.4.1 Construction of Impermeable Barriers
The construction of an impermeable barrier hydraulically down slope from a source of

contamination can be used to mitigate groundwater contamination. This is illustrated in
Figure 17.

As shown in Figure 17, an impermeable barrier directs the flow of groundwater away
from the contamination. A stagnant zone of contaminated soil and groundwater is
therefore created immediately downstream from the barrier.
This technique is a mitigative measure since it does not eliminate the contamination
problem. In addition, impermeable barriers are not effective in the remediation of
contaminants that diffuse easily because the contaminant would flow from the source into
the route of the directed groundwater. Therefore, it is essential that the nature of the
contaminants be evaluated before using this method.
Impermeable barriers can be constructed by sheet piling, slurry trenching or grout

curtains.
7.4.2 Construction of Permeable Treatment Beds
The construction of permeable treatment beds hydraulically down gradient from the
source of contamination can be used to remediate groundwater contamination. This is
illustrated in Figure 18.
Treatment beds can be constructed of various materials, depending upon the nature of the
contaminants. Generally, lime beds are used for neutralizing acidic groundwater and
removing metals, and activated carbon beds are used for removing organic compounds.
Treatment beds have a limited treatment capacity and so it is imperative that they are
sized correctly. In addition, the beds can become plugged, thus raising the groundwater
table upstream from the beds.
7.4.3 Pump and Treat
Pump and treat involves the removal of both free product and dissolved phase NAPL's
by active pumping with the treatment of discharges at surface. Recovered free product
can be subsequently separated from groundwater for further distillation and reuse.
Treated groundwater can then be either re-injected or disposed of providing water quality
satisfies the required discharge standards.
The initial stage of pump and treat is the removal of free product reducing the further
spread of NAPL and dissolution. Removing dissolved phase contaminants before
isolating the free product will alter the equilibrium between the various phases leading
to increased dissolution of adsorbed and free NAPL thereby increasing the amount of
mobile contaminant without significant clean-up. Once the free product has been
isolated, removal of dissolved NAPLs can be achieved more efficiently. However, it
appears from the literature that the recovery of free DNAPLs has not been accomplished
successfully to date due to their evasive nature. Therefore most investigations and
designs deal only with LNAPLs.

Table 13.0
Groundwater Remediation Methods Summary
Option Application Costs Time Implementation Equipment and Utility Advantages Disadvantages
requirements Location Requirements
1. Construction of High groundwater $50,000-1,000,000 Weeks to Insitu, upgradient Excavator Barrier Minimizes Does not remove
Impermeable Barriers flow rates years of contaminant material (eg. Sheet piling, contaminant migration contaminants.
source. grout curtain) in short term.
2. Permeable Treatment High groundwater $50,000-1,500,000 Weeks to Insitu, Excavator Treatment Bed Effective in Treatment beds have
Beds flow rates years downgradient of Materials (eg. Lime, homogeneous, limited capacity.
Groundwater contaminant activated carbon) isotropic reservoir. Treatment beds may
contaminated with source. Low operations and become plugged.
metals and maintenance Tailing may extend time
hydrocarbons. requirements. requirements.
3. Pump and Treat
i) Free Product Removal of LNAPL $50,000-500,000 Months to Insitu Power Unobtrusive Potential explosion
Recovery products. years Pumps installation. hazard
Removes source of Extraction wells Removes
dissolved and vapour Product recovery tank contaminants source.
phase contamination. Oil/Water Separator
ii) Dissolved Removal and $100,000-1,500,000 Months to Insitu Power Stabilizes and contains Tailing may extend time
Phasse treatment of years Pumps contamination. requirements.
Recovery contaminated Extraction wells Unobtrusive
groundwater. Treatment system installation.
Stabilization and
containment of
contaminant plume.
4. Soil Vapour Removal of VOC’s $50,000-1,000,000 Months to Insitu Excavator or Extraction Decreases remediation Not effective for large
Extraction from vadose zone. years Wells time if used in molecular weight
Removal of VOC’s Vacuum pumps conjunction with pump compounds or no-volatile
from dissolved phase, Air inflow wells and treat techniques. hydrocarbons.
free product and Hydrocarbon vapour Prevents spread of Unsuitable for low
adsorbed VOC’s. recovery unit volatilized VOC’s. permeability soils.
Atmospheric emissions.
5. Air Sparging Removal VOC’s from $70,000-1,100,000 Months to Insitu Extraction and inflow Decreases remediation Not effective for large
saturated zone. years wells. time relative to SVE. molecular weight
Vacuum pump and compounds or no-volatile
compressor. hydrocarbons.
Power. Unsuitable for low
Hydrocarbon vapour permeability soils.
recovery unit. Atmospheric emissions.
6. Surface Treatment
Systems
i) Air Stripping Removal of VOC’s. $70,000-1,100,000 Months to Onsite Extraction wells Relatively simple to Not effective for large
years Pumps operate. molecular weight
Stripping tower compounds or no-volatile
Vapour recovery unit hydrocarbons.
Power Unsuitable for low
permeability soils.
Atmospheric emissions.
ii) Granular Removal of NAPL’s $80,000-1,200,000 Months to Onsite Extraction wells Removes wider range High TDS, iron and
Activated as well as some metals years Pumps of contaminants. manganese can cause
Carbon (GAC) GAC Unit plugging of filter GAC is
Power expensive to replace.
7. Reverse Osmosis Removal of inorganics Months to Onsite Extraction wells Treats wide range of Pretreatment for solids
as well as a wide years Pumps contamination. removal is required.
range of organics (eg. Power Requires skilled
Alcohols, ketones, Reverse Osmosis Unit operations personnel.
amines and aldehydes) Only suitable for small
flow rates.


7.4.4 Free Product Recovery
Floating LNAPLs are recovered by depression of the water table by groundwater

extraction creating a capture zone with a hydraulic gradient towards the well. The
product then flows towards and into the well where it is recovered. The abstraction
system follows three main configurations.
1. Single pump
2. Dual pump
3. Double diaphragm suction lift pumps
The single pump system is illustrated in Figure 19. A single, submersible pump or
floating oil skimmer is positioned at or immediately below the pumping level where it
extracts both free LNAPL and groundwater. The submersible pump may be controlled
by a float switch maintaining its position within the floating product zone. The use of
oil skimmers allows equipment to be mounted at surface and does not
require a float switch. The pumped liquid is generally an emulsion of groundwater and
LNAPL and requires treatment in an oil water separator. The separated free product can
then be removed for any subsequent distillation and reuse.
A dual pump system avoids the formation of an LNAPL water emulsion. A groundwater
pump is set at a distance below the anticipated pumping level and is used to lower the
water table. The floating LNAPL is then recovered by a second product pump set at the
LNPAL product level. As little or no groundwater is pumped with the LNAPL it is
essentially a pure phase requiring only storage and disposal. Figure 19 depicts a dual
pump system. Alternately, two adjacent boreholes may be used with the groundwater
pump and product pumps in different wells. This configuration is generally used when
well diameters are restricted, hence preventing installation of both pumps in a single
borehole.
The design criteria for both single and dual pumps systems are generally identical. The
contaminated aquifer should be continuously screened, extending above the observed top
of the floating layer and capillary fringe. This is to accommodate any subsequent
fluctuations in the water table above levels observed during drilling and investigations.
Stabilisation of natural levels may take a significant period of time depending upon the
aquifer permeability and well development. Measured thicknesses of NAPL in boreholes
is also generally not the true thickness of product in the aquifer.
In areas of shallow aquifers up to 7 m depth, double diaphragm suction lift pumps can
be used as an alternative. Their design is based on constructing dewatering well points
with multiple shallow wells or piezometers connected to a large suction lift, surface
mounted pump. The resultant interfering cones of depression create a containment zone,
while concurrently removing the LNAPLs.


The design criteria of the system is primarily a function of aquifer permeability, well
radius of influence and the required suction lift. Well spacings may be based on the
results of pumping or bail tests. The optimal design configuration would be for
maximum interference drawdowns for minimal discharge rates. Note also that the design
configuration must take into account site specific constraints such as foundations and
disposal of discharges. The number of wells is a function of the required well point
spacing, extent of floating product and desired discharges. The number of suction pumps
required is a function of the suction lift for each well. In both high and low permeability
materials, pump efficiency decreases with increased lift. Where lift requirements
approach the capacity of the pump, approximately 7 to 8 m, only one well per pump is
recommended. In shallower conditions of less than 3 m, up to four wells per pump may
be used. Maintenance of the system is minimized by the lack of moving parts in the
wells.
In all cases of floating NAPL recovery extreme caution should be exercised due to the
potential fire and explosive hazards when handling volatile NAPLs. In all the pump
schemes potential ignition sources on pumps and electric should be removed or isolated
from pumped liquids and any confined areas, either at or below surface, ventilated.
Equipment should be fire resistant.
7.4.5 Dissolved Phase Recovery
Dissolved phase recovery has two main objectives in any pump and treat remediation
scheme. The initial aim is the stabilization and containment of the contaminant plume
by establishing a groundwater capture zone. This prevents further migration of dissolved
NAPLs into uncontaminated areas of the aquifer. The second objective is the actual
removal and treatment of the contaminated groundwater and remediation of the aquifer.
The extracted water is treated at the surface by conventional methods.
Well design criteria for dissolved phase recovery wells is similar to that of groundwater
extraction wells. The only significant difference is that well screens should to be
constructed of stainless steel to prevent adsorption to, or diffusion from, plastic screens
of organic compounds. Hence, the main design criteria are the location of the well or
wells and discharge rates. The success of pump and treat systems to remediate an aquifer
depends in part on how many pore volumes can be withdrawn from the contaminated
zone. For optimal design and decreased clean-up time, the volume of contaminated water
pumped must be minimized.
Whichever well pattern distribution is selected in the remediation scheme, it is critical

that borehole depth does not exceed contaminated zone depth, hence possibly resulting
in rapid migration of NAPLs, especially DNAPLs, into previously clean strata.


An obstacle in removal of the adsorbed phases is their limited rate of transfer to the
dissolved phase. The use of chemical surfactants can increase this rate by enhanced
mobilization and solubility. Surfactants are injected into the aquifer where they reduce
the NAPL groundwater interfacial tension hence increasing emulsification and solubility.
Pump and treat remediation schemes, if designed properly, have several advantages over
other methods. They include relatively small investment costs with standard technology,
unobtrusive installations at industrial sites, contaminant plume containment and
management and may be used as an emergency response to a spill. The type of
contaminant is also not a limiting factor providing that it is partially soluble in
groundwater.
7.4.6 Vapour Extraction System
Soil vapour extraction (SVE) is a physical means of removing VOCs from the vadose
zone by applying a vacuum to the aquifer. The vacuum induces vapour flow and
volatilisation of the VOCs from the dissolved, free product and adsorbed phases, which
are removed by vacuum extraction wells or trenches. The vacuum has also been shown
to decrease pressure in the aquifer voids which increases the volatilisation and release of
further VOCs.
A typical SVE system (Figure 20) may utilize well installations with slotted screens set
in a coarse gravel pack for greatest vapour flow potential. The upper section of the well
is solid casing grouted into the soil or sealed with bentonite, hence preventing short
circuiting of atmospheric air into the well through the annular space. In some cases the
soil surface is sealed with an impermeable cover to protect the system from damage and
infiltration of precipitation. To enhance vapour recovery, positive air injection wells are
installed along with the extraction wells. These force uncontaminated air into the
unsaturated contaminated zone both to direct NAPL vapours to the extraction wells and
provide a renewed air supply promoting further transfer of VOCs to the vapour phase.
Injection wells also act as containment barriers preventing lateral migration of vapours
out with the remediation area.
Where the vadose zone is <4 m in thickness, vapour extraction trenches may be used.
In this design scenario perforated pipes are located immediately above the highest water
table level and partially backfilled over with coarse gravel. The remainder of the trench
is completely infilled with a low permeability material to prevent atmospheric short
circuiting. A vacuum is applied to the pipe and the resultant vapours extracted and
treated. Air injection trenches enhance the performance as with injection wells.
Johnson et al (1990) identified three main factors that control the performance of vapour
extraction systems. These are chemical composition of the NAPL, vapour flow rates in
the vadose zone and the location of the vapour flowpaths relative to the NAPL
contamination. The suitability and successful design of an SVE system requires that al
these factors are addressed.


SVE may be very successful if VOCs are the primary NAPL in the vadose zone.
Typically VOCs most suitable to SVE systems have vapour pressures greater than 1 mm
of mercury at 20EC, and Henry's Law constants greater than 100 atm/mol fraction, (e.g.
trichloroethene, benzene, trichloroethylene). Compounds with large molecular weights
are generally unsuitable for SVE, (e.g. diesel). If the vadose zone has a hydraulic
conductivity greater than 10-3 to 10-2 m/s, SVE can achieve suitable levels of remediation,
although successes have been noted in lower permeability clay and silts of 10-3 to 10-6
m/s.
SVE have been shown to be successful in removing floating LNAPLs. In this scenario
natural volatilisation of the NAPL is enhanced by lowering the air pressure in the soil
above the NAPL. This creates a change in the equilibrium between the free product and
vapour phase resulting in volatilization to proceed at an increased rate. The SVE also
induces a rise in the water table by the vacuum which is also known to increase the rate
of transfer to the vapour phase.
7.4.7 Air Sparging
SVE has been shown to be successful in the vadose zone, but lacks the capability to
remediate and treat NAPLs below the water table. Air sparging is an adaptation and
innovation of SVE system where air injection wells are located in the saturated zone,
simulating an in-situ air stripping system. This removes NAPLs from the dissolved
phase and those adsorbed onto the soil matrix. The volatised NAPLs are subsequently
transported in the air stream into the vadose zone, where they are removed by the vacuum
extraction wells, as in SVE. Another advantage of air sparging over SVE is that
remediation of evasive DNAPLs can be addressed. However, compounds most suitable
to air sparging systems are the lighter LNAPLs and VOCs.
The basic components in the system are as those used in SVE. Figure 21 illustrates a
general installation. A vacuum well is screened in the vadose zone immediately above
the highest level of the water table with an air injection well located adjacent to the
extraction well screened entirely in the saturated zone.
The effectiveness of air sparging systems are enhanced by increasing the oxygen
concentration of the injected gas. The result of this is improved biodegradation of the
VOCs and volatilisation of adsorbed phases.
The advantages of air sparging systems include a reduction in overall remediation time
compared to other methods, enhanced biodegradation, physical removal of contaminants
and no contaminated water disposal requirements. Selected cases of air sparging systems
have been shown to reduce complete remediation times to one third that of pump and
treat systems.


7.4.8 Surface Treatment Systems
The two most commonly used surface treatment technologies for dissolved and vapour
phase NAPLs are air stripping (AS) and granular activated carbon adsorption (GAC).
The basis of most treatment systems, especially AS and GAC, is the transfer of
contaminant loads from extracted water or vapour. AS is suitable for VOCs and semi-
volatile NAPLs while GAC and resin adsorption are more suitable for those NAPLs
amenable to adsorption.
7.4.9 Air Stripping
The simplicity of AS and its cost effectiveness make it one of the most common methods
used to remove NAPLs from groundwater. The system operates on the same principle
as SVE and air sparging. In the on-site treatment unit, air and contaminated groundwater
are run counter-current to one another through a chamber containing loose dumped
structured packing. The packing material increases the air/water contact area thereby
increasing the potential for VOCs to transfer from the dissolved phase to the vapour
phase. The air may then be vented to the atmosphere, provided emission levels are
satisfied, or to a GAC vapour treatment facility. The treated water may then be disposed
or re-injected.
The design of an air stripping tower is guided by the levels of contamination in the
influent and required effluent.
The advantages of AS as a treatment method are its effectiveness against most VOCs
found in groundwater, its simple technology and design, and its cost effectiveness for
long term treatment over other methods.
7.4.10 Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Adsorption
As with AS, GAC is commonly used to treat NAPLs in groundwater and vapours.
Activated carbon has a naturally large internal surface area available for the adsorption
of organic compounds. The actual surface area of the commercial activated carbon is
on average 1,000 m2g. The treatment process relies on contaminated water and vapour
passing through a tower filled with GAC, where the contaminants readily sorb
themselves to the carbon. GAC is very effective for low solubility NAPLs, some metals
and inorganic compounds.
A GAC tower design is similar to AS except that the packing is replaced by activated
carbon. GAC towers are typically 1.5-4 m in diameter with the height controlled by the
contaminant loading in the groundwater or vapour and through flow rate. The most
important design consideration to make GAC cost effective is the inclusion of a
regeneration mechanism to reclaim the consumed carbon. Replacement of carbon may

be prohibitively expensive. Regeneration can be achieved either thermally or by steam.

Providing the tower construction can withstand high temperatures, regeneration can be
carried out in-situ. For example, steam may be injected into the tower where it desorbs
contaminants from the GAC pore spaces. The resulting effluent is then removed for
disposal. Steam regeneration is less likely than thermal to alter pore geometry and hence
reduce the overall ability of the GAC to operate efficiently.
If the contaminated groundwater is high in total dissolved solids (TDS), especially iron
and manganese, precipitation may occur onto the carbon surface, hindering the
adsorption process. Hence, filtration units are often added to remove or reduce TDS,
iron and manganese concentrations.
GAC has the advantages of being capable of reducing an extensive range of NAPLs to
very low levels from significant volumes of groundwater or vapour. However, it is
seldom found as the only treatment process on-site, but rather as a finishing process in
conjunction with AS or SVE.
Recent developments have been made in replacing GAC with synthetic resins, which
sorb and NAPLs, however, resin adsorption is very costly and to date used primarily in
experimental trials.
7.4.11 Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis is a less commonly used treatment method than GAC or AS as it

cannot deal with comparable volumes and flow rates. However, it has been shown to
be effective in removing alcohols, ketones, amines and aldehydes.
A reverse osmosis system is relatively simple, comprising a containing vessel, filtration

membrane and high pressure pump. The pump forces the groundwater through the
membrane which removes the NAPLs.
The main problems with reverse osmosis systems relate to the requirement for
pretreatment measures such as removal of suspended solids, pH adjustments and
removal of oxidisers, oil and grease. Hence, as with GAC, it is often used as a finishing
process for small volumes.
7.5 Limitations of Physical Remediation
The main goal of a groundwater remediation scheme may be the requirement to return an aquifer
to drinking water quality. For many organic compounds this requires concentrations of less than
100 parts per billion (ppb), and in some cases less than 5 ppb. The major difficulties with
physical remediation are related to the extraction process and in general, surface treatment is not
the limiting factor. As physical remediation uses a carrier, either in the form of water or air, the
transfer of contaminants to the carrier determines the rate, effectiveness and limitations of the

adopted scheme. Four factors have been identified which limit the efficiency by which
groundwater or vapour extraction can remove contaminants from the subsurface:
1. Desorption of contaminants from aquifer matrix.

2. Contaminant type and kinetics.
3. Geological heterogeneity.
4. Hydrodynamic isolation (dead spots).
These factors may combine to result in groundwater failing to meet drinking water standards for
prolonged periods of time.
7.6 Contaminant Properties and Desorption
The four phases of NAPLs in an aquifer exist in a dynamic equilibrium. Physical remediation
removes the dissolved, vapour and most of the free product relatively quickly, within weeks or
months. This is seen with the initial rapid decrease in contaminant concentrations in pumped
or vapour discharges. However, concentrations soon stabilize at a level usually above the
required standard, a phenomena known as tailing. One of the main causes of tailing is the
inability of physical remediation to directly remove the adsorbed phase from the aquifer matrix.
The initial significant decrease reflects the decrease in the dissolved phase and by dilution when
introducing large volumes of uncontaminated water or vapour into the system.
The removal of these phases changes the equilibrium and indirectly causes the desorption of
NAPLs from the aquifer into the groundwater. However, the contaminant cannot be removed
faster than it is released from the residual saturation of free NAPL, or than it can desorb and
diffuses from the matrix. Therefore physical remediation requires the removal and treatment
of significantly more volumes of water or vapour than were initially contaminated. Unless
injection wells are used, the large volume pumped requires the contamination and treatment of
previously clean groundwater and air. If the NAPL has been present for a significant period of
time, then a large percentage will have diffused into the aquifer matrix and adjacent low
permeability units. The rate of diffusion from clays and silts and desorption from their surfaces
will determine the remediation period, as this process is known to be the slowest stage.
Kinetic limitations to desorption have been observed during field studies of pump and treat
systems. Kinetic limitation is a function of the energy in the system available for chemical
partitioning. Its result is to effectively slow the removal of NAPLs, thereby increasing both the
time required for remediation and the volume of water extracted and treated.
Desorption may occur as a result of the changed equilibria. For example, if pumping ceases
before all the contaminants have been removed, desorption will re-establish an equilibrium and
result in an increase of dissolved concentrations of contaminants.

SVE and air sparging are most suitable for a range of NAPLs dependent on vapour pressure and
Henry's Law constant. Once contaminated groundwater is extracted, the choice of treatment
method is dependent on the NAPL, its vapour pressure and Henry's Law constant. Air stripping
(AS), soil vapour extraction and air sparging are less likely to be effective for contaminants with
vapour pressures <10 mm Hg at 20EC, i.e. non-volatile oganics. In general activated carbon and
resin adsorption are more successful with contaminants that have low water solubility (<100
mg/l) and vapour pressures <10 mm Hg at 20EC. However, caution is advised as these limits
are only guidelines and site specific characteristics may allow apparently unsuitable NAPLs to
be remediated with these methods.
7.7 Site Geology and Hydrogeology
The processes which affect organic transport are essentially the same for any site, but the
optimal design and performance of physical remediation is very site specific, limited by the
geological and hydrogeological characteristics of the site. Unconsolidated aquifers of granular
material typically contain layers of lower permeability clays and silts. Dependent on their
location contaminant migration may be distorted laterally and vertically. This may result in
NAPL position being predictable.
Subsurface heterogeneity and anisotropy are a significant cause of tailing. As contaminant

plumes spread through aquifers, dissolved and vapour phases move more quickly through the
higher permeability units, while they slowly adsorb to and diffuse into less permeable strata.
Over long periods of time, diffusion can trap significant amounts of NAPLs in the aquifer
matrix and fracture walls. When water or vapour is removed from the aquifer, high permeability
units are cleaned relatively efficiently, but clays and silts very slowly desorb and diffuse their
contaminant loads. If these units are not remediated, contamination in the aquifer will persist.
A general rule is the longer the site has been contaminated and the more layered the sequence,
the longer the effects of tailing and the time required for remediation
SVE and air sparging are both sensitive to the presence of stratification and low permeability
lenses. In highly layered sites, vapour will preferentially move along high conductivity horizons,
hence, potentially spreading the contaminant plume. Sparge points, if located below low
permeability lenses, will be severely reduced in effectiveness as the layer will act as a seal
preventing the rise into the vadose zone of the volatilised NAPLs. Vapour will migrate laterally
and rise only at the margins of the lenses where extraction wells may not be positioned.
The limitations of physical remediation are especially acute when dealing with fractured rock
aquifers. Groundwater and NAPL flow in fractured rock aquifers will be preferentially through
the interconnected fracture network. Once in the fracture the NAPL will slowly dissolve into
the groundwater and diffuse into the rock pore spaces, hence pump and treat, SVE and air
sparging have limited effectiveness in fractured aquifers. When attempts are made to remediate
these aquifers by pump and treat, major improvements in water quality are exceedingly slow as
little or no water flushes the hydraulic dead spots which retain NAPL. Hydraulic dead spots
within well fields, both up and down gradient are caused by the interactions of the artificial and

natural hydraulic gradients. Removal of contamination from these areas are dominantly by
diffusion.
7.8 Summary
One of the largest hurdles facing Environmental Engineers and Scientists is deciding whether
or not site remediation is required. In other words, what constitutes a contaminated site.
In the strictest sense of the word a contaminated site could be any site where the concentration
of any one constituent resulting from the introduction of a contaminant exceeds its background
concentration. In practical terms, this definition is of little use since minute increases in
concentrations of contaminants in soil and groundwater have minimal impacts on the
environment.
Engineers and scientists faced with evaluating site contamination generally use one of two
methods to determine if a site is contaminated. These are as follows:
1. Standards and guidelines published by local, regional and federal governments or

international agencies (e.g. World Health organization).
2. Criteria developed by the engineers/scientists retained by the owner of the site, based upon
risk analysis scientific documentation.
After it has been decided that remediation is required, the level to which contaminants should
be remediated must be resolved. This may be problematic as the health related impact of
contaminated soil and groundwater is generally not well developed. Similarly, the level of
remediation can be determined by one of two methods:
1. Use of guidelines, specific for the intended land use, developed by local, regional and federal
governments or international agencies.
2. Use of criteria by the site owners, engineers and scientists using risk based scientific
documentation.
Although it is simplest to use government developed criteria in determining if remediation is

required and the appropriate clean-up levels, risk based site specific criteria development for
large scale sites may be advantageous.

8.0 REFERENCES
Abelson, P.H., 1990. Inefficient Remediation of Groundwater Pollution. Science (editorial). Vol
250, No. 4982, Page 733.
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, July 1995. Storage Requirements for the Upstream
Petroleum Industry.
Alberta Fire Prevention Council, Alberta Fire Code 1992.
American Petroleum Industry Standard 620, June 1990. Design and Construction of Large,
Welded, Low-Pressure Storage Tanks, Eighth Edition.
American Petroleum Industry Standard 650, June 1993. Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage,
Ninth Edition.
American Petroleum Industry Chapter XIII, April 1981. Guide for Inspection of Refinery
Equipment - Atmospheric and Low-Pressure Storage Tanks, Fourth Edition.
American Petroleum Industry Publication 2021, March 1980. Guide for Fighting Fires in and
around Petroleum Storage Tanks, Second Edition.
American Petroleum Industry Standard 653, January 1991. Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration,
and Reconstruction, First Edition.
Ardito, C.P. and Billings, F.G., 1990. "Alternative remediations strategies: The subsurface
volatilisation and ventilation system". Proceedings of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic
Chemicals in Groundwater: Prevention, Detection and Restoration, 281-296. Dublin, Ohio:
National Water Well Association.
Barcelona, M., Keely, J.F., Pettyjohn, W.A. and Whereman, A., 1990. Contamination of
Groundwater. Preventing, Assessment, Restoration. Pollution Technology Review No. 184
Noyes Data Corporation, New Jersey. Chap. 3.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, August 1994. Environmental code of

Practice for Aboveground Storage Tank Systems Containing Petroleum Products.
Clark, L., 1993. "Jet Fuel Clean-up at an International Airport." Proceedings of the Second
Conference on Groundwater Pollution, London: IBC Technical Services.
Daley, P.S., 1989. Cleaning Up of Sites with On-site Process Plants. Environmental Scient and
Technology. Vol. 23, No. 8, Page 912-916.

Danko, J., 1990. Applicability and Limits of Soil Vapour Extraction for Sites Contaminated
with Volatile Organic Compounds. Clean-up of Petroleum Contaminated Soils at Underground
Storage Tanks. Lyman et all, Pollution Technology Review No. 195. Noyes Data Corporation,
New Jersey. Appendix B.
Ellis, B. 1992. On-site and In-situ Treatment of Contaminated Sites. Contaminated Land
Treatment Technologies. Ed. Rees, J.F., Elsevier Applied Science. Page 30-46.
Fetter, C.W., 1988. Applied Hydrogeology. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Chap.
10.
Fetter, C.W., 1993. Contaminant Hydrogeology, 2nd ed. Macmillan Publishing Company. New
York. Chap. 5,7,9.
Gilbert, S.G., and Gress, J.J., 1986. Interceptor Trenches for Positive Groundwater Control.
Proceedings of the Sixth National Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration and
Groundwater Monitoring. Dublin, Ohio: National Water Well Association.
Goodier, J.L., R.J. Siclair and P.A. Garrity, 1993. Sprill Prevention and Fail-Safe Engineering
for Petroleum and Related Products. Hoyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge New Jersey.
Hurry, A., 1993., Aquifer Remediation - Application Design and Limitations of Physical
Remediation Methods, unpublished manuscript, University College London, London, UK.
Hyes, D., Henry, E., & Testa, S., 1989. A Practical Approach to Shallow Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Recovery. Groundwater Monitoring Review. Vol. 11. No. 9, Page 180-185.
Hutchins, S.R., and Wilson, J.T., 1991. Laboratory and Field Studies on BTEX Biodegradation
in a Fuel-contaminated Aquifer under Denitrifying Conditions. In-situ Bioreclamation,
Applications and Investigations for Hydrocarbon and Contaminated Site Remediation. Ed. R.E.
Hinchee & R.F. Olfnbuttel, Battelle Memorial Institute. Page 157-172.
Jonson, P.C., Stanley, C.C., Kemblosski, M.W., Byers, D.L., & Colthart, J.D., 1990. A Practical
Approach to the Design, Operation nd Monitoring of In-situ Soil-venting Systems. Groundwater
Monitoring Review. Vol. 10, No. 2, Page 159-178.
Kerr, J.M., 1990 Investigation and Remediation of VOCs in Soil and Groundwater.
Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 24, No. 2, Page 172-173.
Knox, R.C. and Sabatini, D.A., 1992. Transport and Remediation of Subsurface Contaminants.
ABCS Symposium Series 491. Chap 1.
Lenzo, F.C., 1984. "Air Stripping for VOCs in Water: Pilot-Design-Construction." Proceedings
of the Fourth National Symposium and Exposition of Aquifer Restoration and Groundwater
Monitoring, 100-110. Dublin, Ohio: National Water Well Association.

Lyman, W.J., Noonan, D.C., and Reidy, P.J., 1990. Clean-up of Petroleum Contaminated Soils
at Underground Storage Tanks. Pollution Technology Review No. 195. Noyes Data
Corporation, New Jersey. Chap. 3, Parts I, II.
Mackay, D.M., and Cherry, J.A., 1989. Groundwater Contamination: Pump and Treat
Remediation. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 23, No. 6, Page 630-636.
Makeig, K.S., and Chirlin, G.R., 1986. "Assessment and Remediation of Volatile Organic
Contamination in a Shallow Alluvial Aquifer Restoration and Groundwater Monitoring. Dublin,
Ohio: National Water Well Association. Page 536-558.
Mark, A., 1993. Petroleum Storage Principles. Penwall Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Mugglestone, I., 1993. "The Subsurface Volatilisation and Ventilation System (SVVS) A New
Soil/Groundwater Remediation System. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Groundwater
Pollution, London: IBC Technical Services.
National Research Council of Canada. National Fire Code of Canada, 1990.
Nirmalakhandan, N., Peace G.L., Shanbhag, A.R., & Speece, R.E., 1992. Cascade Air-
Stripping: Techno-Economic Evaluation of a New Groundwater Treatment Process.
Groundwater Monitoring Review. Vol. 12, No. 2, Page 100-104.
Noonan, D., Curtis, J., 1990. Groundwater Remediation and Petroleum. Lewis Publishers,
Michigan.
Noyes, R. 1992. Handbook of Leak, Spill and Accidental Release Prevention Techniques.
Noyes Publication, park Ridge, New Jersey.
Nyer, E.K., 1985. Groundwater Treatment Technology: Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Page 35-83.
Nyer, E.K., 1986. Priming the Pump for In-Situ Treatment. Groundwater Monitoring Review.
Vol. 6, No. 4, Page 4-5.
Nyer, E.K., and Skladany, G.J., 1990. Relating the Physical and Chemical Properties of
Petroleum Hydrocarbons to Soil and Aquifer Remediation. Groundwater Monitoring Review.
Vol. 9, No. 1, Page 54-60.
Nyer, E.K., 1990. One Small Voice for Pump and Treat. Groundwater Monitoring Review.
Vol. 10, No. 2, Page 70-72.
Nyer, E.K., and Morellor, B., 1993. Trichloroethylene Treatment and Remediation.
Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation. Vol. 13, No. 2, Page 98-103.

Ohman Environmental Ltd., 1993. Environmental Site Investigation and Remediation, Calgary,
Alberta.
Parmele, C.S., & Allan R.D., 1982. "Activated Carbon Adsorption with Non-destructive
Regeneration - An Economical Aquifer Restoration Technology." Proceedings of the Second
National Symposium on Aquifer Restoration and Groundwater Monitoring. Columbus, Ohio:
National Water Well Association. Page 58-68.
Pederson, T.A., & Curtis, J.T., 1991. Soil Vapour Extraction Technology. Pollution Technology
Review No. 204. Noyes Data Corporation, New Jersey. Chap. 2,4.
Petroleum industry Training Service, 1996, Decommissioning and Reclamation of Small Oil and
Gas Sites.
Raddell, C.F., & Palombo, D.A., 1986. "Monitoring and Recovery of Free Hydrocarbons from
al Shallow Aquifer." Proceedings of the Sixth National Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer
Restoration and Groundwater Monitoring. Dublin, Ohio: National Water Well Association.
Page 466-481.
Satkin, R.L., & Bedient, P.B., 1988. Effectiveness of Various Aquifer Restoration Schemes
under Variable Hydrogeologic Conditions, Groundwater. Vol. 26, No. 4, Page 488-498.
Schmelling, S.G., Keeley, J.W., & Enfield, C.G., 1992. Critical Evaluation of Treatment
Technologies with particular Reference to Pump and Treat Systems. Contaminated Land
Treatment Technologies. Ed. Rees, J.F., Elsevier Applied Science. Page 220-234.
The Canadian Institute, June 23 and 24, 1992. Western Canadian Underground and
Aboveground Storage Tanks.
Thomsen, K.O., Chaudhry, M.A., Dovantizis, K., & Riesing, R.R., 1989. Groundwater
Remediation using an Extraction, Treatment and Recharge System. Groundwater Monitoring
Review. Vol. 9, No. 1, Page 92-99.
Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada, May 1994. Standard for Aboveground Steel Contained
Tank Assemblies for Flammable and Combustible Liquids.
VanMeurs, G.A.M., 1992. Containment and Remediation of Contaminated Sites by Extraction

of Vapour or Groundwater. Contaminated Land Treatment Technologies. Ed. Rees, J.F.,
Elsevier Applied Science. Page 47-57.
White, C.D., 1993. "Sampling and Monitoring the Unsaturated Zone." Proceedings of the
Second Conference on Groundwater Pollution, London: IBC Technical Services.

APPENDIX 1
Tank Inspection Check List
1.0 TANK IN-SERVICE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

1.1 Foundation
Measure foundation levelness and bottom elevations.
1.1.1 Concrete Ring

Inspect for broken concrete, spalling and cracks, particularly under backup bars used in welding butt welded
annular rings under the shell.
Inspect drain openings in ring, back of waterdraw basins and top surface of ring for indications of bottom
leakage.
Inspect for cavities under foundation and vegetation against bottom of tank.
Check that run-off rain water from the shell drains away from tank.
Check for settlement around perimeter of tank.
1.1.2 Asphalt
Check for settling of tank into asphalt base which would direct run-off rain water under the tank instead of away
from it.
Look for areas where leaching of oil has left rock filler exposed, which indicates hydrocarbon leakage.
1.1.3 Oiled Dirt or Sand

Check for settlement into the base which would direct run-off rain water under the tank rather than away from
it.
1.1.4 Rock
Presence of crushed rock under the steel bottom usually results in severe underside corrosion. Make a note to
do additional bottom plate examination (ultrasonic, hammer testing or turning of coupons) when the tank is out
of service.
1.1.5 Site Drainage

Check site for drainage away from the tank and associated piping and manifolds.
Check operating condition of dike drains.
1.1.6
Housekeeping
Inspect the area for buildup of trash, vegetation, and other inflammables buildup.
1.2 SHELLS
1.2.1 External Visual Inspection
Visually inspect for paint failures, pitting, and corrosion.
Clean off the bottom angle area and inspect for corrosion and thinning on plate and weld.
Inspect the bottom-to-foundations seal, if any.
1.2.2 Internal (Floating Roof Tank)

Visually inspect for grooving, corrosion, pitting, and coating failures.
1.2.3 Riveted Shell Inspection

Inspect external surface for rivet and seam leaks.
- I.1 - ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

Locate leaks by sketch or photo (location will be lost when shell is abrasive cleaned for painting).
Inspect rivets for corrosion loss and wear.
Inspect vertical seams to see if they have been full fillet lap welded to increase joint efficiency.
If no record exists of vertical riveted seams, dimension and sketch (or photograph) the rivet pattern: number of
rows, rivet size, pitch length, and note whether the joint is butt riveted or lap riveted.
1.2.4 Windgirder (Floating Roof Tanks)

Inspect windgirder and handrail for corrosion damage (paint failure, pitting, corrosion product buildup),
especially where it occurs at tack welded junctions, and for broken welds.
Check support welds to shell for pitting, especially on shell plates.
Note whether supports have reinforcing pads welded to shell.
1.3 SHELL APPURTENANCES

1.3.1 Manways and Nozzles
Inspect for cracks or signs of leakage on weld joints at nozzles, manways, and reinforcing plates.
Inspect for shell plate dimpling around nozzles, caused by excessive pipe deflection.
Inspect for flange leaks and leaks around bolting.
Inspect sealing of insulation around manways and nozzles.
Check for inadequate manway flange and cover thickness on mixer manways.
1.3.2 Tank Piping Manifolds

Inspect manifold piping, flanges, and valves for leaks.
Inspect fire fighting system
components.
Check for anchored piping which would be hazardous to the tank shell or bottom connection during earth
movement.
Check for adequate thermal pressure relief of piping to the tank.
Check operation of regulators for tanks with purge gas systems.
Check sample connections for leaks and for proper valve operation.
Check for damage and test the accuracy of temperature indicators.
Check welds on shell-mounted davit clips above valves 6" and larger.
1.3.3 Autogage System

Inspect autogage tape guide and lower sheave housing (floating swings) for leaks.
Inspect autogage head for damage.
Bump the checker on autogage head for proper movement of tape.
Identify size and construction material of autogage tape guide (floating roof tanks).
Compare actual product level to the reading on the autogage (maximum variation is 2").
On floating roof tanks, when the roof is in the lowest position, check that no more than two feet of tape are
exposed at the end of the tape guide.
Inspect condition of board and legibility of board-type autogages.
Test freedom of movement of marker and float.
1.3.4 Shell-Mounted Sample Station
ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - I.2 -

Inspect sample lines for function of valves and plugging of lines, including drain or return-to-tank line.
Check circulation pump for leaks and operating problems.
Test bracing and supports of sample system lines and equipment.
1.3.5 Heater (Shell Manway Mounted)
Inspect condensate drain for presence of oil indicating leakage.
1.3.6 Mixer
Inspect for proper mounting flange and support.
Inspect for leakage.
Inspect condition of power lines and connections to mixer.
1.3.7 Swing Lines: Winch Operation

Nonfloating. Raise, then lower the swing line with the winch, and check for cable tightness to confirm that
swing line lowered properly.
Floating. With tank half full or more, lower the swing line, then let out cable and check if swing has pulled
cable tight, indicating that the winch is operating properly.
Indicator. Check that the indicator moves in the proper direction: Floating swingline indicators show a lower
level as cable is wound up on the winch. Non-floating swings line indicators show the opposite.
1.3.8 Swing Lines: External Guide System

Check for leaks at threaded and flanged joints.
1.3.9 Swing Line: Identify Ballast Varying Need

Check for significant difference in stock specific gravity.
1.3.10 Swing Lines: Cable Material and Condition

For non-stainless steel cable, check for corrosion over entire length.
All cable: check for wear or fraying.
1.3.12 Swing Lines: Target

Target should indicate direction swing opening (up or down) and height above bottom where suction will be
lost with swing on bottom support.
1.4 ROOFS
1.4.1 Deck Plate Internal Corrosion
For safety, before accessing the roof, check with ultrasonic instrument or lightly use a ball peen hammer to test
the deck plate near the edge of the roof for thinning (corrosion normally attacks the deck plate at the edge of a
fixed roof and at the rafters into the center of the roof first).
1.4.2 Deck Plate External Corrosion

Visually inspect for paint failure, holes, pitting, and corrosion product on the roof deck.
1.4.3 Roof Deck Drainage

Look for indication of standing water (significant staffing of fixed roof deck indicates potential rafter failure.
Larger standing water areas on a floating roof indicates inadequate drainage design or, if to one side, an unlevel
roof with possible leaking pontoons).

1.4.4 Level of Floating Roof

At several locations, measure distance from roof rim to a horizontal weld seam above the roof. A variance in
the readings indicates a non-level roof with possible shell out-of-round, out-of-plumb, leaking pontoons or
hang-up. On small diameter tank, an unlevel condition can indicate unequal loading at that level.
1.4.5 Gas Test Internal Floating Roof
Test for explosive gas on top of the internal floating roof. Readings could indicate a leaking roof, leaking seal
system, or inadequate ventilation of the area above the internal floating roof.
1.4.6 Roof Insulation

Visually inspect for cracks or leaks in the insulation weather coat where run-off rain water could penetrate the
insulation.
Inspect for wet insulation under the weather board.
Remove small test sections of insulation and check roof deck for corrosion and holes near the edge of the
insulated area.
1.4.7 Floating Roof Seal

Systems
Measure and record maximum seal-to-shell gaps:
at low pump out
at midshell
at high liquid level
Measure and record annular space at 30 foot spacing (minimum of 4 quadrants) around roof and record.
Measurements should be taken in directly opposite pairs.
Opposite pair 1
Opposite pair 2
Check if seal fabric on primary shoe seals is pulling shoes away from shell (fabric not wide enough).
Inspect fabric for deterioration, holes, tears, and cracks.
Inspect visible metallic parts for corrosion and wear.
Inspect for openings in seals that would permit vapor emissions.
Inspect for protruding bolt or rivet heads against the shell.
Pull both primary and secondary seal systems back all around the shell to check their operation.
Inspect secondary seals for signs of buckling or indications that their angle with the shell is to shallow.
Inspect wedge-type wiper seals for flexibility, resilience, cracks, and tears.
1.5 ROOF APPURTENANCES

1.5.1 Sample
Hatch
Inspect condition and functioning of sample hatch cover.
On tanks governed by Air Quality Monitoring District rules, check for the condition of each inside hatch cover.
Check for corrosion and plugging on theif and gage hatch cover.
Where sample hatch is used to reel gage stock level, check for marker and tab stating hold off distance.
Check for reinforcing pad where sample hatch pipe penetrates the roof deck.
On floating roof sample hatch and recoil systems, inspect operation of recoil reel and condition of rope.
Test operation of system.
On ultra clean stocks such as JP4, check for presence and condition of protective coating or liner inside sample
hatch (preventing rust from pipe getting into sample).

1.5.2 Gagewell
Inspect visible portion the gagewell for thinning, size of slots, and cover condition.
Check for a hold off distance marker and tab with hold off distance (legible).
On floating roofs, inspect condition of roof guide for gagewell, particularly the condition of the rollers for
grooving.
If accessible, check the distance from the gagewell pipe to the tank shell at different levels.
If tank has a gagewell washer, check valve for leakage and for presence of a bull plug or blind flange.
1.5.3 Fixed Roof Scaffold Support

Inspect scaffold support for corrosion, wear, and structural soundness.
1.5.4 Autogage: Inspection Hatch and Guides (Fixed Roof)

Check the hatch for corrosion and missing bolts.
Look for corrosion on the tape guide's and float guide's wire anchors.
1.5.5 Autogage: Float Well Cover

Inspect for corrosion.
Check tape cable for wear or fraying caused by rubbing on the cover.
1.5.6 Sample Hatch (Internal Floating Roof)

Check overall conditions.
When equipped with a fabric seal, check for automatic sealing after sampling.
When equipped with a recoil reel opening device, check for proper operation.
1.5.7 Roof-Mounted Vents (Internal Floating Roof)

Check condition of screens, locking and pivot pins.
1.5.8 Gaging Platform Drip Ring

On fixed roof tanks with drip rings under the gaging platform or sampling area, inspect for plugged drain return
to the tank.
1.5.9 Emergency Roof Drains

Inspect vapor plugs for emergency drain: that seal fabric discs are slightly smaller than the pipe ID and that
fabric seal is above the liquid level.
1.5.10 Removable Roof Leg Racks

Check for leg racks on roof.
1.5.11 Vacuum Breakers

Report size, number and type of vacuum breakers. Inspect vacuum breakers. If high legs are set, check for
plating off mechanical vacuum breaker in high leg position.
1.5.12 Rim Vents

Check condition of the screen on the rim vent cover.
Check for plating off or removal of rim vents where jurisdictional rules do not permit removal.

1.5.13 Pontoon Inspection Hatches

Open pontoon inspection hatch covers and visually check inside for pontoon leakage.
Test for explosive gas (an indicator of vapour space leaks).
If pontoon hatches are equipped with locked down covers, check for vent tubes. Check that vent tubes are not
plugged up. Inspect lock down devices for condition and operation.

2.1 OVERVIEW
Check that tank has been cleaned, is gas free, and safe for entry.
Check that the tank is completely isolated from product lines, all electrical power, and steam lines.
Check that roof is adequately supported, including fixed roof structure and floating roof legs.
Check for presence of falling object hazards, such as corroded-through roof rafters, asphalt stalactites, and
trapped
hydrocarbons in unopened or plugged equipment or appurtenances, ledges, etc.
Inspect for slipping hazards on the bottom and roof decks.
Inspect structural welds on accessways and clips.
Check surfaces needing inspection for a heavy-scale buildup and check weld seams and oily surfaces where
welding is to be done. Note areas needing more cleaning, including blasting.
2.2 TANK EXTERIOR

Inspect appurtenances opened during cleaning such as lower floating swing sheave assemblies, nozzle
interiors(after removal of valves).
Hammer test or ultrasonically test the roof.
Enter and inspect the floating roof pontoon compartments.
2.3 BOTTOM INTERIOR SURFACE

Using a flashlight held close to and parallel to the bottom plates, and using the bottom plates layout as a
guide, visually inspect and hammer test the entire bottom.
Measure the depth of pitting and describe the pitting appearance (sharp edged, lake type, dense, scattered,
etc.).
Mark areas requiring patching or further inspection.
Mark locations for turning coupons for inspection.
Inspect all welds for corrosion and leaks, particularly the shell-to-bottom weld.
Inspect sketch plates for corrosion.
Locate and mark voids under the bottom.
Record bottom data on a layout sketch using the existing bottom plates as a grid. List the number and sizes
of patches required.
Vacuum test the bottom lap welds.
Hammer test or ultrasonically examine any slightly discolored spots or damp areas.
Check for reinforcing pads under all bottom attached clips, brackets, and supports.
Inspect floating roof leg pads for pitting or cutting, and excessive dimpling (indicating excessive loading).
Check the column bases of fixed roof supports for adequate pads and restraining clips.
In earthquake zones check that roof supports are not welded down to the tank bottom, but are only
restrained from horizontal movement.
Check area beneath swing line cable for indications of cable cutting or dragging.
Mark old oil and air test connection for removal and patching.
Identify and report low areas on the bottom that do not drain adequately.
Inspect coating for holes, disbonding, deterioration, and discoloration.
2.4 SHELL SEAMS AND PLATE

On cone up bottoms, closely inspect and gage the depth of metal loss on the lower 2 to 4 " of the shell (area

of standing water).
Measure the depth of pitting on each course.
Inspect and estimate the amount of metal loss on the heads of rivets and bolts.
Inspect shell-to-bottom riveted lap joints.
Inspect for vertical grooving damage from seal assembly protrusions.
Inspect existing protective coatings for damage, deterioration, and disbonding.
Check for areas of rubbing (indicating too much pressure by the seal assembly shoes or inadequate annular
space).
Visually inspect the shell plates and seams for indications of leakage.
If the shell has riveted or bolted seams, record the leak locations by film or chart in case the locations are
lost during surface preparation for painting.
Measure annual space at 40-foot intervals.
Survey the shell to check for roundness and plumb.
2.5 SHELL-MOUNTED OVERFLOWS

Inspect overflow for corrosion and adequate screening.
Check location of overflow that it is not above any tank valves or equipment.
2.6 ROOF INTERIOR SURFACE

2.6.1 General
Visually inspect the underside surface of the roof plates for holes, scale build-up, and pitting.
Hammer test or ultrasonically examine to check for thin areas, particularly in the vapor space of floating
roofs and at edge of roof on cone roof tank.
Check all clips, brackets, braces, etc., welded to the roof deck plate for welded reinforcing pads and see that
they have not broken free.
If no pad is present, penetrant test for cracking of the weld or deck plate.
Inspect the protective coating for breaks, disbondment, and deterioration.
Spark test the interior surface coating if recoating is not planned.
2.6.2 Fixed Roof Support Structure

Inspect the support columns for thinning in the upper two feet.
On API columns (two channels welded together) check for corrosion scale breaking the tack welds, unless
the joint between the channels is completely seal welded.
Check that the reinforcing pad on the bottom is seal welded to the tank bottom with horizontal movement
restraining clips welded to the pad.
Determine if pipe column supports are concrete filled or open pipe. If open pipe, check for a drain opening
in the bottom of the pipe.
Inspect and gage rafters for thinning, particularly near the center of the roof. Report metal loss.
Check for loose or twisted rafters.
Inspect girders for thinning and check that they are attached securely to the top of the columns.
Report if the columns have cross bracing in the area between the low pump out and top of the shell (for
future internal floating roof installation).
Inspect and report presence of any roof-mounted swing line bumpers.
Photograph the roof structure if no rafter layout drawing exists.

2.7 FIXED ROOF APPURTENANCES

2.7.1 Inspection and Light Hatches
Inspect the hatches for corrosion, paint and coating failures, holes, and cover sealing.
On loose covers, check for a safety chain in good condition.
On light hatches over 30 " across, check for safety rods.
Inspect the condition of the gaskets on bolted or latched down hatch covers.
2.7.2 Staging Support Connection

Inspect the condition of the staging support for corrosion.
2.7.3 Breathers and Vents

Inspect and service the breather.
Inspect screens on vents and breathers.
2.7.4 Emergency P/V Hatches

Inspect and service pressure/vacuum hatches (setting should be high enough to prevent chattering of
breather during normal operation. See breather manufacturer's guide).
Inspect liquid seal hatches for corrosion and proper liquid level in the seal.
2.8.5 FLOATING ROOF

2.8.1 Roof Deck
Hammer test the area between roof rim and shell (if access for hammer testing is inadequate, measure the
distance from the bottom edge of the roof to the corroded area and then hammer test from inside the
pontoon).
In sour water service, clean and test all deck plate weld seams for cracking unless the lower laps have been
seal welded.
Check that either the roof drain is open or the drain plug in the roof is open in case of unexpected rain.
On flat bottomed and cone down bottom roof decks, check for a major dam around the periphery of the
roof.
The dam should be continuous without break to prevent escape of vapors to the seal area from under the
cente of roof.
2.8.2 Floating Roof Pontoons

Visually inspect each pontoon for liquid leakage.
Run a light wire through the gooseneck vents on locked down inspection hatch covers to make sure they are
open.
Inspect lockdown latches on each cover.
Check and report if each pontoon is:
Vapor tight (bulkhead seal welded on one side on bottom, sides, and top)
Liquid tight (seal welded on bottom and sides only) or
Unacceptable (minimum acceptable condition is liquid tight).
2.8.3 Floating Roof Cutouts

Inspect underside of cutouts for mechanical damage.

Inspect welds for cracks.

Inspect plate for thinning, pitting, and erosion.
Measure mixer cutouts and record plate thickness for future mixer installation or replacement.
Plate thickness: __________
2.8.4 Floating Roof Supports

Inspect fixed low and removable high floating roof legs for thinning.
Inspect for notching at bottom of legs for drainage.
Inspect for leg buckling or belling at bottom.
Inspect pin hole in roof guide for tears.
Check plumb of all legs.
Inspect for adequate reinforcing gussets on all legs through a single portion of the roof.
Inspect the area around the roof legs for cracking if there is no internal reinforcing pad or if the topside pad
is not welded to the deck plate on the underside.
Inspect the sealing system on the two-position legs and the vapor plugs in the fixed low leg for deterioration
of the gaskets.
On shell mounted roof supports, check for adequate clearance based on the maximum floating roof
movement as determined by the position of the roof relative to the gagewell and/or counter rotational
device.
2.9 FLOATING ROOF SEAL ASSEMBLIES

2.9.1 Primary Shoe Assembly
Remove four sections of foam log (foam filled seals) for inspection, on 90° locations.
Inspect hanger attachment to roof rim for thinning, bending, broken welds, and wear of pin holes.
Inspect clips welded to roof rim for thinning.
Shoes: Inspect for thinning and holes in shoes.
Inspect for bimetal bolts, clips, and attachments.
Seal fabric: Inspect for deterioration, stiffening, holes, and tears in fabric.
Measure length of fabric from top to shoe to roof rim, and check against maximum anticipated annular
space as roof operates.
Inspect any modification of shoes over shell nozzles, mixers, etc., for clearance.
Inspect shoes for damage caused by striking shell nozzles, mixers, etc.
2.9.2 Primary Toroidal Assembly

Inspect seal fabric for wear, deterioration, holes, and tears.
Inspect hold down system for buckling or bending
Inspect foam for liquid absorption and deterioration.
2.9.3 Rim Mounted Secondaries

Inspect the rim-mounted bolting bar for corrosion and broken welds.
Measure and chart seal-to-shell gaps.
Visually inspect seal from below, looking for holes as evident by light.
Inspect fabric for deterioration and stiffness.
Inspect for mechanical damage, corrosion, and wear on tip in contact with shell.

Inspect for contact with obstructions above top of shell.
2.10 FLOATING ROOF APPURTENANCES

2.10.1 Roof Manways
Inspect wall of manways for pitting and thinning.
On tanks with interface autogages, check seal around gage tape cable and guide wires through manway
cover.
Inspect cover gasket and bolts.
2.10.2 Rim Vent

Check rim vent for pitting and holes.
Check vent for condition of screen.
On floating roof tanks were the environmental rules require closing off the vent, check the vent pipe for
corrosion at the pipe-to-rim joint and check that the blinding is adequate.
2.10.3 Vacuum Breaker, Breather Type

Service and check operation of breather valve.
Check that nozzle pipe projects no more than ½ inch below roof deck.
Inspect reinforcing pad and pad welds.
2.10.4 Vacuum Breaker, Mechanical Type

Inspect the stem for thinning. Measure how far the vacuum breaker cover is raised off the pipe when the
roof is
resting on high or low legs.
On high legs:
On low legs:
2.10.5 Roof Drains: Open Systems, Including Emergency Drains

Check liquid level inside open roof drains for adequate freeboard. Report if there is insufficient distance
between liquid level and top of drain.
If tank comes under Air Quality Monitoring District rules, inspect the roof drain vapor plug.
If emergency drain is not at the center of the roof, check that there are at least three emergency drains.
2.10.6 Closed Drain Systems: Drain Basins

Inspect for thinning and pitting.
Inspect protective coating (topside).
Inspect basin cover or screen for corrosion.
Test operation of check valve.
Check for presence of check valve where bottom of basin is below product level.
Inspect drain basin(s) to roof deck welds for cracking.
Check drain basin(s) outlet pipe for adequate reinforcement to roof deck (including reinforcing pad).
2.10.7 Closed Drain Systems: Fixed Drain Line on Tank Bottom

Hammer test fixed drain line on tank bottom for thinning and scale/debris plugging.
Inspect supports and reinforcing pads for weld failures and corrosion.
Check that pipe is guided, not rigidly locked to supports, to avoid tearing of tank bottom plate.
2.10.8 Closed Drain Systems: Flexible Pipe Drain

Inspect for damage to exterior of pipe.
Check for obstructions that pipe could catch on.
Inspect shield to protect pipe from snagging.
Inspect results of hydrotest on flexible roof drain system.
2.10.9 Closed Drain Systems: Articulated Joint Drain

Hammer test rigid pipe in flexible joint system for thinning and scale/debris plugging.
Inspect system for signs of bending or strain.
Inspect results of system hydrotest.
Inspect landing leg and pad.
2.10.10 Autogage System and Alarms

Check freedom of movement of tape through autogage tape guide
Inspect sheaves for freedom of movement.
Test operation checker.
Inspect tape and tape cable for twisting and fraying.
Test the tape's freedom of movement through guide sheaves and tape guide pipe.
On open-top tanks, check that gate tape with cables have no more than one foot of tape exposed with float at
lowest point.
Check float for leakage.
Test float guide wire anchors for spring action by pulling on wire and releasing.
Inspect floatwells in floating roofs for thinning and pitting of walls just above the liquid level.
Check that the autogage tape is firmly attached to the float.
Inspect the tape cable and float guide wire fabric seals through the float well cover.
Inspect the bottom guide wire attachment clip: inspect for a temporary weighted bar instead of a permanent
welded down clip.
Inspect board-type autogages indicators for legibility and freedom of movement indicator.
Measure and record these distances to determine if seal damage will occur if tank is run over:
From shell top angle to underside of tape guide system
From liquid level on floating top to top of secondary seal.
Identify floating roofs where the tape is connected directly to the roof.
Overfill alarm: Inspect tank overfill preventing alarm switches for proper operation.
2.11 COMMON TANK APPURTENANCES

2.11.1 Gage Well
Inspect gage well pipe for thinning at about two-thirds distance above the bottom: look for thinning at the
edge of the slots.

Check for corrosion on the pipe joint. Check that sample cords, weights, thermometers, etc., have been
removed from the pipe.
Check for cone at bottom end of pipe about one foot above the bottom.
Check condition of well washer pipe and that its flared end is directed at the near side of the hold of pad.
Check that supports for gage well are welded to pad or to shell and not directly to bottom plate.
Check operation of gage well cover.
Check presence of hold-off distance marker in well pipe and record hold-off distance.
Hold-off Distance: __________
Identify and report size and pipe schedule, and whether pipe is solid or slotted. Report slot size.
Check that the hold-off distance plate is seal welded to the bottom and that any gagewell supports are
welded to the plate and not directly to the bottom.
Inspect vapor control float and cable.
Check for presence and condition of gagewell washer.
Check for bull plug or plate blind on gagewell washer valve.
Inspect gage well guide in floating roof for pitting and thinning.
Inspect the guide rollers and sliding plates for freedom of movement.
Inspect condition of gagewell pipe seal system.
On black oil and diesel services: if gagewell is also used for sampling, check for presence of a thief and
gage-type hatch to void spillage.
Visually inspect inside of pipe for pipe weld protrusions which could catch or damage vapor control float.
2.11.2 Sampling Systems: Roof Sample Hatches.

Inspect roof mounted sample hatches for reinforcing pads and cracking.
Inspect cover for operation.
For tanks complying with Air Quality Monitoring District rules, inspect sample hatch covers for adequate
sealing.
Check horizontal alignment of internal floating roof sample hatches under fixed roof hatches.
Inspect the sealing system on the internal floating roof sample hatch cover.
Inspect floating roof sample hatch cover recoil reel and rope.
2.11.3 Shell Nozzles

Inspect shell nozzles for thinning and pitting.
Inspect hot tap nozzles for trimming of holes.
Identify type of shell nozzles.
Identify and describe internal piping, including elbow up and elbow down types.
2.11.4 For Nozzles Extended Into the Tank

Inspect pipe support pads welded to tank bottom.
Inspect to see that pipe is free to move along support without strain or tearing action on bottom plate.
Inspect nozzle valves for packing leaks and damaged flange faces.
Inspect heater steam nozzle flanges and valves for wire cutting.
Report which nozzles shave thermal pressure relief bosses and valves.
In internal elbow-down fill line nozzles, inspect the wear plate on the tank bottom.

On elbow-up fill lines in floating roof tanks, check that opening is directed against underside of roof, not
against vapour space. Inspect impact area for erosion.
2.11.5 Diffusers and Air Rolling Systems.

Inspect diffuser pipe for erosion and thinning.
Check holes in diffuser for excessive wear and enlargement.
Inspect diffuser supports for damage and corrosion.
Check that diffuser supports restrain, not anchor, longitudinal line movement.
Inspect air spiders on bottom of lube oil tanks for plugging and damaged or broken threaded joints.
2.11.6 Swing Lines

Inspect flexible joint for cracks and leaks.
Scribe the flexible joint across the two moving faces and rinse end of swinging to check the joint's freedom
of movement, indicated by separation of scribe marks.
Check that flexible joints over 6 " are supported.
Inspect the swing pipe for deep pitting and weld corrosion.
Loosen the vent plugs in the pontoons and listen for a vacuum. Lack of a vacuum indicates a leaking
pontoon.
Check the results of air test on pontoons during repairs.
Inspect the pontoons for pitting.
Inspect the pull-down cable connections to the swing.
Inspect the condition of the bottom-mounted support, fixed roof limiting bumper, or shell mounted limiting
bumper for wood condition, weld and bolt corrosion, and seal welding to bottom or shell.
Inspect safety hold-down chain for corrosion and weak lines.
Check that there is a welded reinforcing pad where the changing connects to the bottom.
If the floating swing in a floating or internal floating roof tank does not have a limiting device preventing
the swing from exceeded 60°, measure and calculate the maximum angle possible with the roof on overflow.
Max. angle on overflow: __________
(If the calculated angle exceeds 65°, recommend installation of a limiting bracket).
Inspect pull down cable for fraying.
Inspect for three cable clamps where cable attaches to end of swingline (single-reeved) or to roof assembly
(double-reeved).
Inspect sheaves for freedom of movement.
Inspect winch operation and check the height indicator for legibility and accuracy.
Inspect bottom-mounted sheave assembly at end of pontoon for freedom of rotation of sheave.
Inspect shell-mounted lower sheave assembly for freedom of rotation of sheave, corrosion thinning, and
pitting of sheave housing.
Inspect upper sheave assembly for freedom of movement of sheave.
Inspect the cable counterbalance assembly for corrosion and freedom of operation.
2.11.7 Manway Heater Racks

Inspect the manway heater racks for broken welds and bending of the sliding rails.
Measure and record the length of the heater and length of the track.
2.11.8 Mixer Wear Plates and Deflector Stands

Inspect bottom and shell plates and deflector stands.

Inspect for erosion and corrosion on the wear plates. Inspect for rigidity, structural soundness, corrosion,
and erosion of deck plates and reinforcing pads that are seal welded to the bottom under the deflector stand
legs.
Measure for propeller clearance between the bottom of deflector stand and roof when the roof is on low
legs.
2.12 ACCESS STRUCTURES

2.12.1 Handrails
Identify and report type (steel pipe, galvanized pipe, square tube, angle) and size of handrails.
Inspect for pitting and holes, paint failure.
Inspect attachment welds.
Identify cold joints and sharp edges. Inspect the handrails and midrails.
Inspect safety drop bar (or safety chain) for corrosion, functioning, and length.
Inspect the handrail between the roofing ladder and the gaging platform for the hazardous opening when the
floating roof is at its lowest level.
2.12.2 Platform Frame

Inspect frame for corrosion and paint failure.
Inspect the attachment of frame to supports and supports to tank: for corrosion and weld failure.
Check reinforcing pads where supports are attached to shell or roof.
Inspect the surface that deck plate or grating rests on, for thinning and holes.
Check that flat-surface to flat-surface junctures are seal welded.
2.12.3 Deck Plate and Grating

Inspect deck plate for corrosion-caused thinning or holes (not drain holes) and paint failure.
Inspect plate-to-frame weld for rust scale build-up.
Inspect grating for corrosion-caused thinning of bars and failure of welds.
Check grating tie down lips. Where grating has been retrofitted to repalce plate, measure the rise of the step
below and above the grating surface and compare with other risers on the stairway.
2.12.4 Stairway Stringers

Inspect spiral stairway stringers for corrosion, paint failure, and weld failure. Inspect attachment of
stairway treads to stringer.
Inspect stairway supports to shell welds and reinforcing pads.
Inspect steel support attachment to concrete base for corrosion.
2.12.5 Rolling Ladder

Inspect rolling ladder stringers for corrosion.
Identify and inspect ladder fixed rungs (square bar, round bar, angles) for weld attachment to stringers and
corrosion, particularly where angle rungs are welded to stringers.
Check for wear and corrosion where rolling ladder attaches to gaging platform.
Inspect pivot bar for wear and secureness.

Inspect operation of self-leveling stairway treads.

Inspect for corrosion and wear on moving parts.
Inspect rolling ladder wheels for freedom of movement, flat spots, and wear on axle.
Inspect alignment of rolling ladder with roof rack.
Inspect top surface of rolling ladder track for wear by wheels to assure at least 18 " of unworn track (track
long enough).
Inspect rolling ladder track welds for corrosion.
Inspect track supports on roof for reinforcing pads seal welded to deck plate.
Check by dimensioning, the maximum angle of the rolling ladder when the roof is on low legs.
Max. angle: __________
If rolling ladder track extends to within five feet of the edge of the roof on the far side, check for a handrail
on the top of the shell on that side.

APPENDIX 2
Technique Feasibility Worksheets
for Evaluating Success of Various
Groundwater Remediation Schemes
(Lyman et al, 1990)
Appendix 2
Worksheet for Evaluating the Feasibility of

Using Pumping Wells to Contain NAPL and/or
Dissolved Contaminant in the Saturated Zone
Critical Success Factor (CSF) Units Site of Success Less Success Somewhat Likely Success More
Interest Likely Likely
Release Related
Amount Release Gallons Small (<50,000) Medium (50,000-500,000) Large (>500,000)
Time Since Release Months Short (<1) Medium (1-12) Long (>12)
Site Related
*Site Stratigraphy Complex Simple
Depth to Groundwater Meters Shallow (<5) Dump (>5)
Contaminant Related
Liquid Density g/cm3 Low (<1) High (>1)
Liquid Viscosity cP High (<2) Medium (1-2) Low (<1)
Other Considerations
1. Installation of pumping wells can be delayed due to difficulties delineating well ZOC.
2. Extracted groundwater must often be disposed of or treated.
3. This may be the only effective containment method as site where depth to water table is great.
* CSFs denoted with an asteric are typically more important than other CSFs.
- II.1 - ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

Appendix 2
Worksheet for Evaluating the Feasibility of Using

Vacuum Extraction to Remove Floating NAPL at Your Site
Critical Success Factor (CSF) Units Site of Success Less Success Somewhat Success More
Interest Likely Likely Likely
Site Related
*Soil Air Conductivity cm/sec Low (<106) Medium (10-4-10-6) High (>10-4)
Soil Temperature °C Low (<10) Medium (10-20) High (>20)
Moisture Content % volume High (>30) Medium (10-30) Low (<10)
2
Soil Surface Areas m /g High (>1) Medium (0.1-1) Low (0.1)
Carbon Content % weight High (>10) Medium (1-10) Low (.1)
Contaminant Related
*Vapour Pressure mm/Hg Low (<10) Medium (10-100) High (>100)
Water Solubility mg/L High (>1000) Medium (100-1000) Low (<100)
1. Treatment of contaminant vapors may be required before discharge to atmosphere.
* CSFs denoted with an establish are typically more important than other GSFs.
ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - II.2 -

Appendix 2
Worksheet for Evaluating the Feasibility of Using Air

Stripping to Treat Extracted Groundwater at Your Site
Critical Success Factor (CSF) Units Site of Success Less Success Somewhat Success More
Release Related
*Amount Released Gallons High (<1000) Medium (1,000- Large (>500,000)
50,000)
*Time Since Release Months Small (<1) Medium (1-12) Long (>12)
Site Related
Groundwater Temperature °C Low (<10) Medium (10-20) High (>20)
Total Suspended Solids Contend of GW mg/L High (>20) Medium (5-20) Low (<5)
*Total Disolved Iron and Manganes Content of mg/L High (>5) Medium (0.2-5) Low (<0.2)
GW
Contaminant Related
*Vapor Pressure min/sec Low (<10) Medium (10-100) High (>100)
*Water Solubility mg/L High (>1000) Medium (100-1000) Low (<100)
*Dissolved Contaminant Concentrations mg/L Low (>1) Medium (1-100) High (>100)
1. Air stripping is not effective in removing containments to drinking water standards.
2. Permitting requirements can delay implementation.
3. Can cost effectively treat large volumes of groundwater.
4. Treatment of contaminated vapors may be required before discharge to atmosphere.
- II.3 - ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

Appendix 2
Worksheet for Evaluating the Feasibility of Using Carbon

Adsorption to Treat Extracted Groundwater at Your Site
Critical Success Factor Units Site of Success Less Success Somewhat Success More
Release Related
Amount Released Gallons Large (>50000) Medium (1,000- Small (<1000)
50,000)
Time Since Release Months Long (>12) Medium (1-12) Short (<1)
Site Related
*TOC Content of GW mg/L High (>5) Medium (1-5) Low (<1)
Suspended Solids Content of GW mg/L High (>20) Medium (5-20) Low (<5)
*Total Dissolved Iron and Manganes Content of mg/L High (>5) Medium (0.2-5) Low (<0.2)
GW
Contaminant Related
*Water Solubility mg/L High (>1000) Medium (100-1000) Low (<100)
*Molecular Weight g/mole Low (<100) Medium (100-200) High (>200)
1. Can remove contaminants to drinking water standards.
2. Costs increase significantly if large volumes of highly contaminated groundwater is encountered.
ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - II.4 -

Mission
It is our mission to generate and carry out activities that will lead to the creation of
a more favorable environment for the development of the oil and natural gas
industry in Latin America and the Caribbean, by promoting:
* The expansion of business opportunities and the improvement of

competitive advantages of its members.
* The establishment of a framework to favor competition in the sector.
* The timely and efficient exploitation of hydrocarbon resources and the

supply of its products and services; all this in conformity with the
principles of sustainable development.
To accomplish this mission, ARPEL works in cooperation with international

organizations, governments, regulatory agencies, technical institutions, universities
and non-governmental organizations.
Vision
ARPEL aims at becoming an international level organization that through its

guidelines activities and principles exert an outstanding leadership in the
development of the oil and natural gas industry in Latin America
and the Caribbean.
Objectives
* To foster cooperation among members.
* To study and assess actions leading to energy integration.
* To participate pro-actively in the process of development of laws and

regulations concerning the industry.
* To support actions that expand the areas of activity and increase

business opportunities.
* To serve as an oil and gas activity information center.
* To develop international cooperation programs.
* To promote a responsible behavior for the protection of the

environment, thus contributing to sustainable development.
* To take care of the oil and natural gas industry’s public image.
* To study and disseminate criteria and opinions on the sector’s relevant

issues.
Regional Association of Oil and Natural Gas Companies in Latin America and the Caribbean
Javier de Viana 2345 – CP 11200 Montevideo – URUGUAY
Phone: (598 2) 400 6993* Fax (598 2) 400 9207*
E-mail: arpel@arpel.org.uy
Internet web site: http://www.arpel.org

Guideline 18 - 1229954345212

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Guideline 18 - 1229954345212

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

GUIDELINES FOR

CONTROL OF CONTAMINATION FROM

Kirk Morrison, M.A. Sc., P. Eng.

ARPEL, June 1998

ARPEL, Javier de Viana 2345, CP 11200 Montevideo - URUGUAY

Bel••MK Engineering Ltd.

Reviewers Enrique Escobar Ayoroa YPFB

2.0 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................2.1

3.0 CODES AND STANDARDS...........................................................................................3.1

4.0 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................4.1

5.0 CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION ....................................................................5.1

6.0 AST OPERATIONS .........................................................................................................6.1

i ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd

7.0 DECOMMISSIONING AND REMEDIATION OF SUBSURFACE

8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................8.1

Appendix 1 Tank Inspection Check List....................................................................................I.1

ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - ii -

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1.0 Typical Arrangement of Chain Float Gauge..........................................................3.8

iii ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

Figure 20.0 Typical Soil Vapour Extraction System.................................................................7.18

ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - iv -

- 1.1 - ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - 1.2 -

In general, four environmental receptors may be impacted, directly or indirectly, as a result

- 2.1 - ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

AST Requirements Publication Coverage

ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - 2.2 -

Table 1.0 cont’d

AST Requirements Publication Coverage

- 2.3 - ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

3.0 CODES AND STANDARDS

a) material specifications for AST's including associated piping, structural

4. "Alberta Fire Code 1992", Alberta Fire Prevention Council.

- 3.1 - ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

6. "Environmental Code of Practice for Aboveground Storage Tank Systems

3.1 Setbacks of AST's

ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - 3.2 -

Maximum Tank Capacity (L) Minimum Setback Distance (m)

Exceptions to the above mentioned setbacks are as follows:

3.2 Tankage and Piping Materials

- 3.3 - ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

3.3 Cathodic Protection

Cathodic protection is used to eliminate corrosion cells on a metal surface by means of an

1. The resistivity of the soil in the tank area.

ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - 3.4 -

3. The amount of current flowing from the tank.

3.4 Lining Materials

3.5 Secondary Containment

- 3.5 - ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

Secondary Published Reference

ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - 3.6 -

1. 10 L spill containment box.

3.6 Inspection, Monitoring and Reporting

3.7 Fire Protection

- 3.7 - ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18

ARPEL Environmental Guideline No. 18 - 3.8 -

A commonly overlooked design aspect in downstream facilities such as refineries is the

A more detailed review of the above is presented in Section 4.4.

3.8 Leak Detection

Float-activated devices consist of a float connected to an external indicating mechanism.