Integrity of atmospheric storage tanks

SPC/Tech/Gen/35
Author unit / section: HID CI1G, HID CI5B
Target audience: HID Discipline Specialists (Mechanical Engineering, HID
Regulatory Specialists, FOD Specialist Group (Mechanical Engineering)

Purpose
Background
Introduction
Aim
Objectives
Scope
Good practice benchmarks
Storage tank background
Procedures and documentation
Damage mechanisms
Original manufacture, modification, and repair defects
Tank inspection; inspection bodies and competencies
Inspection practices
Inspection periodicity
Inspection reports
GRP/HDPE tanks
Horizontal tanks
Piping, bellows & flexible joints
Venting and relief
Second hand tanks
Coatings and linings
Hydrotesting
Codes and guidance
Supporting guidance (inspection and continued fitness for service)
Supporting guidance (general)

Purpose
The purpose of this circular is to raise awareness of the factors to consider when
operating storage tanks containing hazardous substances. Information was drawn from
a series of site inspections ranging from refinery tank farms, large speciality chemical
storage facilities as well as a number of smaller sites where bulk storage tanks were
used to store raw, intermediate and final product materials.

Background
While some of the information is general and can be applied to a wide range of
mechanical plant, other parts of the report are equipment-specific. It is intended as a
reference aid to assist regulators and those concerned with the operation, and in-service
integrity of storage tanks, by identifying good practices. These are set out in Section 5.

Other sections of the report cover issues such as general integrity procedures, damage
mechanisms, manufacturing and repair defects, inspection practices, non-metallic tanks,
venting and relief, coatings and linings, and hydrotesting. It concludes with a summary
of the most relevant codes and standards.

Introduction
1 During the 2005/2006 work year Inspectors in HID CID carried out a number of
interventions examining the way in which the integrity of atmospheric storage tanks was
managed.

Aim
2 The aim of this SPC is to provide Mechanical Engineering Inspectors with
information for use when inspecting atmospheric storage tanks at COMAH sites and
other hazardous installations.
3 Regulatory Specialists are not expected to attempt a detailed technical inspection
using this guidance. It may be useful, however, in supporting interventions associated
with the HID Chemicals Industry Strategy particularly Key Goal 1 Prevention of Major
Accidents.
4 The SPC also gives a summary of the principal management arrangements to reduce
the risk of loss of containment from storage tanks that were identified as representing
good practice for this sector. HSE expects duty holders to adopt relevant good practice
as a minimum. Therefore these measures, or others that have been demonstrated to be at
least as effective, would normally be considered enforceable as part of the package of
measures that reduce risks ALARP.

Objectives
5 The objectives of the project were to:

identify key issues affecting integrity management

raise the profile of atmospheric storage tank integrity assurance
benchmark and promote good practice across sites.

Scope
6 The scope of the interventions was limited to in-service issues relating to tanks
containing hazardous substances, their appurtenances, and piping up to the first
isolations. The principal focus was on those measures to prevent loss of primary
containment.
7 Most designs of tank were included in the exercise e.g. flat-bottomed vertical
cylindrical, skirt and leg supported domed end, and horizontal. Tanks constructed from
non-metallic materials such as GRP and HDPE were also studied in the project and
appear to be gaining popularity for certain applications, notably the storage of mineral
acids.

8 No tanks constructed from aluminium were inspected nor were any with double skins
or double bottoms. A number of stainless steel tanks were seen during the course of the
project and many claimed to have been designed and manufactured generally in
accordance with BS 2654 Specification for Manufacture of vertical steel welded nonrefrigerated storage tanks with butt-welded shells for the petroleum industry[1]
9 Key issues examined included:

integrity management policy and procedures

codes and guidance
deterioration mechanisms
inspection practices (including RBI techniques; hydrotesting etc.)
competencies

Note: because of the wide range of topics areas some were intentionally left out of
scope, for example:

refrigerated storage
buried or above-ground mounded tanks
gas holders
bolted tanks
silos
level controls, alarms, trips and instrumentation
bunds and tertiary containment
flow control valves, block valves and rosovs

Good practice benchmarks

10 This SPC identifies reasons why the integrity management arrangements of
atmospheric storage tanks are usually not as comprehensive and robust as for other
process plant and equipment. The following list summarises good practices identified
during the interventions together with existing guidance and standards:

Tanks containing hazardous substances should be identified and entered in the

plant register
Operators should maintain tank data files
Compatibility assessments should be undertaken (e.g. tanks on multiproduct
service)
Tanks should be subject to formal periodic maintenance and inspection
Inspection and maintenance of tanks should only be carried out by experienced
and qualified competent persons
Schemes of inspection should be established and agreed between Operators and
Competent Persons
Operators and Competent Persons should have knowledge of and adopt the
recommendations given in the relevant guides, codes and standards
Tank examination schemes should include both internal and external
inspections
Appropriate inspection techniques should be utilised, depending on deterioration
mechanisms

Inspection reports and checklists should be of high quality

Where necessary recommendations from inspection reports should be actioned
promptly
Assessment for fitness for service should be carried out following tank
inspection and significant changes to process or operating conditions

Storage tank background

11 Storage tank integrity needs to be well managed since tanks can contain large
inventories of hazardous liquids and their failure has the potential to result in serious
and dramatic events.
12 Many of the tanks around the UK are still in operation after well over 50 years of
service. Use of riveted tanks installed in the first half of the 20th century is still
widespread. The oldest tank seen still in service was of riveted construction,
manufactured in 1893, and used to store diesel oil.
13 Failures, though not as common as those in piping systems, occur regularly.
Permeable bunds are still found at many sites and it is by no means unknown for a tank
to be leaking through the base without any indication or the Operators knowledge.
14 Tanks are often perceived as simple structures that require little attention.
Nevertheless damage mechanisms associated with them can be complex and varied.
The measures Operators have in place to maintain tanks in a safe operating condition
were found to be variable and in some cases fundamentally inadequate.
15 Atmospheric tanks are similar to much process piping in that they are non-codal
type equipment (i.e. not subject to PSSR 2000 regulations). Integrity management
regimes are not nearly as mature and well developed as for pressurised plant. In the UK
there is no specific duty or regulation that sets out prescriptive rules for storage tank
inspections, though clearly duties under HSW, COMAH and PUWER regulations can
apply. The generally high reliability of tanks has meant that in many instances
maintenance approaches have tended to be reactive. Usefully, there is extensive
guidance available on periodic/proactive tank maintenance and inspection practice .
References to Supporting Guidance are given in Section 21.
16 It is often the case that thorough inspections of tanks are only carried out if the tank
can be taken out of service, which, in many instances, can only be achieved by
agreement between the Operator and their customers who are renting the space under
3rd party tank lease agreements. Clearly this can be a major problem where shortage of
tanks or lack of flexibility is an issue.
17 At many sites tanks are not dedicated to a single substance and may have been used
to contain a range of products. This can have a significant effect on their integrity, not
only from the threat of direct chemical attack and corrosivity (e.g. incompatibility
between the substance stored and the tank material of construction) but from other
factors such as product density, chemical stability, volatility, concentration, temperature
and erosion.

18 At the best-managed sites this difficulty is clearly recognised and strict procedures
are in place to assess the properties of different products. These controls were not in
place on many of the less well-managed sites.
19 Despite their importance storage tanks are frequently perceived as infrastructure
and not fundamental to process. This can lead to issues such as poor record keeping,
insufficient design, construction and condition information, unsatisfactory design
drawings, process diagrams and P&IDs. Often repairs, modifications and other
changes, some which have been substantial, have not been documented and captured on
records.

Procedures and documentation

20 Well-produced policy and procedural documentation describing the systems in place
to provide integrity assurance of storage tanks were seen at the best managed sites.
These specified the principal requirements of an integrity management regime and were
used to underpin all of the good practices seen at these sites. The documentation often
included references to relevant guidance and standards.
21 Key information in good procedures included administrative and organisational
information, statements on general integrity strategy, roles and responsibilities,
personnel qualifications, tank databases and operational duties.
22 High-quality procedures often incorporated annexes giving details of inspection
scope and techniques associated with the main elements of tanks e.g. foundations,
floors, roofs, and shell. Where relevant, additional detail would set out particular
requirements (e.g. for inspection and maintenance of floating as opposed to fixed roofs,
or requirements for insulated tanks). Individual sections included different
requirements for external and internal examination. Guidance was also given on the
format, production and retention of records along with corrective actions and review
procedures.
23 Other general information incorporated elements such as schemes of examination
specifying the frequency and scope of inspections (in and out-of-service), recommended
NDT techniques, cleaning and surface preparation standards, retirement limits, level and
settlement surveys, repairs and hydrotests.
24 In the best cases procedures also defined the requirements for maintenance,
inspection and testing of protective devices such as pressure/vacuum valves and
emergency relief.
25 Procedures often specified inspection strategies drawn from the three leading
guidance documents: API Std 653 Tank inspection, repair, alteration and
reconstruction, API RP 575 Guidelines and Methods for Inspection of Existing
Atmospheric and Low-Pressure Storage Tanks and EEMUA 159 Maintenance and
inspection of above ground vertical steel cylindrical storage tanks.
26 Other specific guidance material, such as HSE PM 75 Glass reinforced plastic
vessels and tanks: advice to users, National Sulphuric Acid Association (NSAA)
Recommended guidelines for the bulk storage of sulphuric acid, oleum and liquid

sulphur trioxide and HSG 235 Guidance on the storage of Hydrochloric and Nitric
Acid in tanks were referred to where relevant.
27 Use was also made of HSG 176 The Storage of Flammable Liquids in Tanks which
makes an important recommendation that there should be a written scheme of
examination (WSE) agreed between the user and competent person that should include
the scope and frequency of the thorough examination. It is worth noting that although
the WSE and the scope of inspection may well be similar to that employed on pressure
plant, this WSE is not, from a regulatory perspective, the same as that required under
Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000.
28 The best Operators maintained tank records that contained information such as
original design codes and construction data, date of installation, operational history,
piping systems or process schematics, drains, foundation data, repairs and
modifications, maintenance and inspection histories. In the best cases the key
document was the scheme of examination, each adapted to the individual tank. These
schemes identified the forseeable deterioration mechanisms and then specified the
maintenance and inspection practices to prevent or control them.
29 Some of the less well-managed sites had little if any formal in-service inspection
and maintenance procedures for their tanks. Indeed in many cases tanks were not even
individually identified in plant registers or included in any proactive inspection and
maintenance regime, even where these contained hazardous substances.
30 While it is essential to examine tanks on an individual basis some useful information
can be obtained from sample inspections. Guidance on the circumstances where the
results from sample examinations can be helpful in modifying recommended inspection
frequencies or the scope of an inspection are given in API Std 653 and EEMUA 159.

Damage mechanisms
31 A wide range of damage mechanisms can cause a storage tank to deteriorate and
fail. Many can operate simultaneously. This section cannot identify all of these but does
aim to address those that pose a threat to the integrity of the structure. The following
section on inspection methods will describe how the failure mechanisms can be
detected.
Corrosion
32 The vast majority of storage tanks are constructed from carbon steel and corrosion is
a prime cause of deterioration of them and their accessories. It can be associated almost
equally from external attack (atmospheric side) or from an internal (product side)
mechanism. By way of example tanks in crude oil service can be particularly
susceptible to sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) attack.
33 Corrosion is rarely uniform, though this is not unknown. However, random,
localised, pitting corrosion attack, particularly of flat-bottomed tank floors appears to be
the most common failure. This can be topside down (especially where there is an
aqueous phase) or underside up. Product temperature appears to be an important
element. The condition and materials of construction of tank base along with the

effectiveness and durability of the floor to base seal, and the slope angle of the berm or
tank pad away from the base are crucial factors in prevention of bottom up corrosion.[2]
34 Corrosion attack of the lower shell strakes is also common as is attack of annular
plates where these are fitted. This is often, though by no means universally, caused by
poor bund drainage. Edge lamination of annular rings is also commonly seen in these
circumstances. BS 2654 recommends tanks > 12.5m diameter should be
constructed with annular ring plates. API 650 takes a different approach and uses
allowable stress to determine when annular plates are necessary.
35 For the reasons outlined above many Operators arrange to have the bottoms and
typically the first metre of their tanks painted or coated to provide increased corrosion
protection. Linings and coatings for tanks is a subject in itself and some further detail
on coating protection is given later in the report.
36 Deterioration and failure of tank drains is common. Drains are often the single
most vulnerable point on a tank, especially those that run through channels under the
floor. They are regularly overlooked, difficult to inspect, the culverts are often
submerged in rainwater and full of debris. At one site the channel under the tanks and
the drains had simply been concreted in.
37 Water draw-off sumps are also vulnerable parts of the tank, particularly those which
are centrally located on cone-down type floors. While wall thicknesses are generally
greater than that of the floor both the inner and outer walls are at potentially greater
threat from corrosion. Guidance on inspection techniques for sumps is poor and it is
arguable that full ultrasonic thickness scans should be carried out here. API 650 gives
information on centre draw-off sumps and drains.
38 Examples were seen where preferential attack had occurred to lower shell strake
welds and in another case the floor directly under the dipping point on one tank
containing diesel oil had been pierced. This may be attributed to fretting-related
corrosion (a mechanism seen with floating roof support leg striking plates) where
repeated contact removes any protective layer of rust scale that may have formed.
39 External corrosion is often found also where fittings are welded to the tank shell or
at water traps for example around and below wind girders, stairwells and vertical/spiral
stairway connections.
40 Other areas of increased corrosion attack are typically at the liquid/vapour interfaces
and areas around vents and breathers where oxygen and humidity levels can be higher.
41 Care must be taken walking on tank roofs where there are doubts about its
condition. It is by no means unusual that the first sign of deterioration found is when
daylight is seen through holes in the roof at the time of internal entry. Internal damage
can occur where the product is more corrosive in its vapour phase and due to general
condensation in the roof space. It can be more prevalent around vents and breathers.
Some Operators highlighted roof walkways by painting them in a different colour or
used a non-slip coating and carried out additional inspections in these areas.

42 There are a number of different designs of floating roofs and inspection of their
many features such as rolling ladders, deck plates, seals, drains, pontoons and guides is
carried out from the top. Like that for fixed roofs care should always be taken when
walking on them and, if the tank is in service, access is normally restricted if the roof is
below a certain level (normally top dip or no more than 2m from the top). Access to
pontoons or the inter-space of double deck roofs should also be restricted if the tank is
in-service.
43 The other most common external corrosion attack is CUI (corrosion under
insulation). Here the operating temperatures are critical and many tanks contain liquids
that are stored in the at risk range of 50 to 100C. Also where insulating material is
high in chlorides. Again the damage tends to manifest itself as pitting attack
predominantly around the bottom edge particularly if the insulation is not cut away
causing a wicking effect.
44 Effective preventative measures here incorporate good insulation and cladding
standards, effective sealing at vulnerable areas for example the shell to roof joint,
insulation supports, small-bore penetrations and include an insulation holiday for about
the first 8 to 10 (200 to 250mm) from the tank base. Recommendations for the design
and application of insulation can be found in Appendix B of BS 2654.
45 Chloride stress corrosion cracking is the main cause of degradation with stainless
steel tanks. It is temperature dependent and the main problem areas are the nozzles and
attachment points around steam heating coils.
Erosion
46 Is generally found at points of increased flow or change in flow direction
particularly adjacent to fill and discharge nozzles. It is especially common in tanks
containing sulphuric acid. In many cases increased thickness of materials or backing
plates are used where erosion is identified as a threat. One instance was found where
damage to a tank sump, which eventually leaked, was caused by poorly installed
vibrating piping which eroded the side wall of the sump.
47 Erosion of a floating roof tank inner shell wall was identified at one site where the
tank was sited downwind in a particularly dusty location. It has also been observed
directly under a mixer on a tank in crude oil service.
Creep
48 Cold creep (or stretching over a period of time) is a well-understood deterioration
mechanism but is limited to non-metallic thermoplastic tanks. These tanks can be
temperature sensitive as well with HDPE in particular losing strength as temperature
increases.
Fatigue
49 Does not appear as significant a potential failure mechanism as for pressure vessels
since the membrane stresses are generally much lower. Nevertheless for tanks in high
cyclic fill/empty service areas of high stress such as the floor to shell/annular to shell

welds could be threatened as well as some areas around nozzles. It is common to feel
tank floors flex when walking across them. Many operators utilise dye penetrant and
MPI NDT techniques to inspect for fatigue induced defects.
50 Fatigue is recognised in GRP tanks and a service life is defined.
Chemical attack
51 The threat to tank integrity through chemical attack and incompatibility between the
products stored and the material of construction is obvious. The most common
construction materials are carbon and stainless steels, thermoplastics, polypropylene,
PVC, PVDF, HDPE, and laminates such as GRP. Aluminium tanks are used more
commonly for hoppers and silos and in low temperature applications but appear less
general for normal liquid storage. Tanks utilising a variety of lining and coating
materials are used although metallic clad tanks are quite rare.
52 Carbon steel is suitable for the storage of a large number of chemicals, however,
some, such as dilute acids will react with carbon steel.
53 Stainless steels are often used where purity and quality of the stored chemical is
paramount. However welding of stainless steel tanks and system components is critical
as these can be susceptible to stress corrosion cracking.
54 Additional information of HDPE and GRP tanks is given later in the report, however
poor high temperature properties, UV light degradation and environmental cracking are
all well understood failure modes for non-metallic tanks.
55 It is essential that the materials used for the construction of the storage tank are
compatible with the chemicals to be stored. Additional consideration may be required
where chemicals are stored at elevated temperatures. The best Operators had robust
systems which identified the issues as well as applying formal change procedures to
assess the effects of any anticipated product/ tank changes.
Mechanical damage
56 Mechanical damage to storage tanks can be caused by impact, differential or nonuniform settlement, over-pressurisation, vacuum, excess dead loads such as snow or ice,
and wind inflicted damage. Buckling of shell plates and other externally inflicted
damage should be identified from good inspection. Shell buckling can have severe
effects where tanks are fitted with floating roofs as can differential settlement and tilt.
57 Snow and wind loads appear to be the most common threats to a tanks structure and
buckling of the shell due to wind gusts is relatively common. Buckling of shells and
catastrophic failure have been caused by internal vacuum where vents have become
blocked. Serious damage has also occurred on floating roof tanks where rainwater
drains have blocked or failed.
58 Subsidence can occur particularly on weak and compressible ground. Many tank
farms are sited on recovered land, often alongside rivers and other environmentally

sensitive areas. All of the tank codes stress the importance of Operators/Designers
understanding the subsurface conditions and the soil properties.
59 Frost heave and frequent freeze-thaw of the ground can affect tank foundations as
can exceptionally high tides in tidal areas. This can lead to uniform or differential
settlement, planar tilt and edge settlement. In addition to roof binding on floating roof
tanks and cracking of welds it can also affect connected piping systems many of which
are fitted with bellows or flexible joints of varying design.
60 The interventions revealed that many Operators did not consider it necessary to
carry out periodic verticality and settlement surveys.
61 It is worth noting that anchoring flat-bottomed tanks using bolts is not a mandatory
design requirement. Many factors are taken into consideration such as tank foundation
type, deadweight, product weight, pressure uplift and roof frangibility. These must be
balanced with other risks e.g. tanks floating if bunds fill with rainwater or leaking
product or wind loads. Where fitted the design codes do specify a minimum diameter
and spacing. Clearly condition evaluation of anchor bolts is fundamental if they are
fitted. This can be carried out in conjunction with the foundation inspection.
62 The poor impact resistance of non-metallic tanks is well recognised. Mishandling
during transport and poor installation have resulted in their premature failure
Brittle fracture
63 Brittle failures of tanks have occurred shortly after construction especially during
hydrotesting or on the first filling in cold weather. Experience has shown that once a
tank has demonstrated satisfactory service the risk due to brittle failure in normal
operation is minimal. More information on tank hydrotesting is given later in the
report.
64 Section 5 of API Std 653 is devoted to an assessment procedure for tanks in brittle
fracture service.

Original manufacture, modification, and repair defects

65 This section of the report gives examples seen where original manufacturing defects
or questionable repairs and alterations have been carried out.
66 Examples of loss of containment have arisen from weld defects particularly from
poor standards of single pass butt weld in floors, shell to floor welds, and from fatigue
cracking of welds in the floor and around nozzles.
67 Patch over plating of metallic tank floors is common as is whole floor replacement.
It is not unusual for floors to be replaced with thicker plates e.g. 6mm being replaced
with 8mm plate. Floor replacement also allows the opportunity for foundation material
checks and any remediation to be carried out. This is often carried out by jacking the
whole tank up, or by cutting out letterbox type sections in turn. Jacking can also be
used to correct uneven settlement. Good advice on tank jacking is given in EEMUA
159.

68 Annular plates typically suffer from corrosion attack around the outer exposed plate
edge, which, in extreme cases, can lead to a laminated appearance. In addition both
top-side and bottom-side corrosion are relatively common. At one site throughthickness cracking occurred from a region of undercut along the inner shell to annular
plate fillet weld. Most of these problems are caused, or at least exacerbated, by
inadequate foundation support under the annular plate and poor drainage. It is also
possible that cyclic loading could also play a part. Modifications to improve the
drainage in this region based on the recommendations in CIRIA 598 Chemical storage
tank systems good practice: Guidance on design, manufacture, installation, operation,
inspection and maintenance are often made at the time when new annular plates are
installed.
69 In one other case it was found that a tank floor and annular plates had been replaced
and when the tank was subsequently hydrostatically tested it was reported that a lower
shell plate moved inwards towards the tank centre and became distorted, along with two
other plates higher up the tank shell. This was attributed to an incorrect alignment
between the lower shell course and the new annular plates prior to welding.
70 General shell wall thinning and subsequent failures are much less frequent than
floors but can occur on external floating roof tanks. Articulated roof drain failures are
also common on these types of tank.
71 Repairs to lower shell strakes generally involve cutting out and re-welding areas of
replacement shell plate (including one or more entire shell plates or full height segments
of shell plate) or welding into place lapped patch plates. It should be noted that lapped
patch shell repairs are considered to be an acceptable form of repair for butt-welded,
lap-welded and riveted tank shells in API Std 653 but only under specified
circumstances. If more extensive areas of shell plate require repair then the use of buttwelded shell replacement plate is preferred. The repair of a buckled tank shell should
always be done using insert plates.
72 At one site repairs had been made to corrosion holes in two tank shells using epoxy
or polymer based type materials. No formal assessment of integrity threat had been
carried out or any indication given of when these would be replaced by a proper repair.
73 The installation of a second drain line into a tank required a repair and
modification. Unfortunately, to accommodate both drain pipes in the sump one of the
vertical sections of the new steel drain pipe had to be located in close proximity to the
sump wall. This eventually resulted in perforation of the sump and a considerable
quantity of product was lost. Details of this failure are given in the News and
Alerts section of the Refineries Issues Group[1] page.
74 Roof repair procedures are described in API Std 653. If it is necessary to replace
roof plates consideration should be given to strengthening areas used as designated
walkways (subject to proper design assessment).
75 Repairs to wind girders are also covered briefly in API Std 653 plus repair to other
features such as penetrations. This document makes frequent reference to the original
design code (i.e. API Std 650).

76 During the course of the project numerous examples were seen where the
competence of those organisations engaged to carry out repairs of storage tanks varied
markedly.

Tank inspection; inspection bodies and competencies

77 A number of Operators employed Type B or 2nd party inspection bodies to carry
out the inspection activities while others employed Type A or 3rd party inspection
bodies. Some were independent sole traders (not UKAS accredited) while in other
cases the inspectors were the engineer/surveyors from the major engineering insurance
companies accredited as Full or Associate members of the Safety Assessment
Federation (SAFed).
78 HSE has growing concerns over the differences in performance of the inspection
bodies, particularly in respect of COMAH major accident sites. Contacts with the
representative trade associations have become more regular recently in order to address
matters of common interest.
79 It was not uncommon to find sites that did not employ dedicated tank inspectors or
utilised competent contractor support. Inspector qualification and competencies are
covered later in this section.
80 The competencies of those involved with tank inspection varied markedly. In the
organisations with the better integrity management programmes examinations were
conducted by inspectors qualified to the standards required by API Std 653 or EEMUA
159 using a range of techniques. There appeared to be widespread knowledge of the
EEMUA 159 guidance document even if not all operators followed its recommendations
rigorously.
81 HSE recommends that only qualified and competent persons are engaged for the
inspection of atmospheric storage tanks. Provider information is available on the
internet giving details on formal courses which train inspectors to either API Std 653 or
EEMUA 159 standards[1][2].
82 Examples were seen which demonstrated that the inspections performed by single
operator inspectors or others employed by more reputable bodies were not of a high
standard and many had never received any formal training.
The following issues were identified:
1.

In a number of cases companies were not clear what service the tank inspector
was providing, who had responsibility to interpret the inspection results and then
decide if a tank was fit for continued service until the next inspection. Some
companies were under the mistaken impression that an inspection report simply
listing the inspection findings without any analysis and setting no date for the
next examination was sufficient to justify continued operation. This is not good
practice.
2. Cases were seen where the original tank design, manufacturing and operating
details were unknown and in addition, in some instances there was little, if any,
previous tank inspection history available. Despite these complications some
companies had adopted inspection frequencies without first:

1.

Comparing the design and manufacturing details of the tank against

appropriate design codes; and,
2. Establishing the datum condition of the tank.
Again, this is not good practice.
3.

4.
5.

6.
7.

8.
9.

After many years of inspecting tanks at fixed inspection intervals one site
decided to implement a risk based inspection (RBI) approach. The new
inspection interval determined from the RBI assessment was applied from the
date of the review and not from the date of the last inspection under the old
regime. As a consequence the period between inspections on some tanks was
significantly outside the maximum inspection period recommended from the RBI
review.
Many examples were seen where recommendations from inspection reports had
been ignored. This points to a failing in the integrity management arrangements
within the company and is poor practice.
Other cases were seen where it appeared that the person carrying out the
inspection was not aware of the contents of the scheme of examination. This is a
potentially difficult area for the inspector if a subsequent failure points to an
omission in the scope of the last inspection.
It was not uncommon to find that large numbers of tank (and other equipment)
inspections had been completed at a single visit. This implies a cursory and
superficial approach to the examinations.
At one site, the inspection resource had been concentrated on plant falling within
the scope of the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 (as amended) and,
possibly as a consequence, one storage tank inspection was found to be 15 years
overdue. At the better companies no distinction was made between plant falling
within the scope of PSSR and plant outside the scope of PSSR.
The quality of the inspections carried out on HDPE tanks was particularly
variable and a number of tanks were found to be operating beyond their original
design life without any supporting technical justification.
A failure investigated during the course of the project involved the piercing of
the tank floor due to repeated contact with the nose of a weight attached to the
dip tape. The failure mechanism does not appear to be given due prominence in
either EEMUA 159 or API Std 653. This is an issue that may benefit from wider
publicity as the location of the potential failure is easily checked during internal
tank inspection and the solution (e.g. an additional striker plate) relatively easy to
install.

Inspection practices
83 This section gives an account of the main inspection practices seen during the
project. There is an abundance of guidance and other publications on this topic and
only a brief description is given here.
84 The interventions revealed that thorough tank inspections were often very limited in
scope before the 1990s. In many instances they were visual only. This situation is
improving and numerous techniques were encountered with most Operators carrying
out external visual checks as part of the routine maintenance function. Nevertheless

examples were found where no proactive inspections of the internal condition of the
tanks were being undertaken.
85 It is worth stating that thorough internal inspections of storage tanks can involve a
very high investment of time and resource. Opening up a tank for safe entry and to
allow meaningful inspection may require months of preparatory work. The costs can be
very substantial and a tank may be out service for extended periods of time.
Visual
86 Visual inspection remains the principal technique and used both during external
intermediate examinations and for thorough internal examination. Checklists set out in
the EEMUA and API codes provide comprehensive guidance on those areas where
visual examinations should be made.
87 As well as the provision of good access equipment such as ladders, scaffolding,
machines etc. it is to be emphasised that detailed visual internal inspections of tanks can
only be carried out under adequate lighting conditions. BS EN Standard 970:1997
Visual Examination of Fusion Welds recommends lighting intensity level for
inspection of no less than 350 lx while 500 lx is preferred.
88 Tank cleanliness is also essential, and, depending on the product stored, may involve
many weeks of intensive cleaning effort. Other preparatory work can include supporting
floating roofs and removing equipment such as heating coils and drains.
89 Frequencies of external inspections varied widely. In some cases a number of
external visual inspections would be carried out before one internal thorough inspection
was completed. Generally, however, inspections alternated between an intermediate
external examination and a thorough internal (and external) examination.
90 Visual inspections of shells on insulated tanks can be problematic. Unless there was
evidence of cladding or insulation damage, discolouration etc, little was removed. In
some cases Operators required areas to be stripped though the procedures in general
permitted a considerable degree of latitude.
91 The most common approach was to remove sections of cladding and insulation
adjacent to spiral staircases. It is essential however that careful examination is made at
other vulnerable areas such as below wind girders, other penetrations like pipe
stabbings, handrails etc. and at the roof to shell joint. One example was seen where the
Operator had incorporated purpose-designed sealed vertical strips into the insulation at
the cardinal points around each insulated tank. Each of these contained a number of
removable plugs that permitted direct access to the shell. This allowed easy access for
repeat thickness checks and also some limited opportunity to check for CUI.
92 The principal codes do not give detail on the amount of insulation removal, however
excellent advice is given in Section 7 of API RP 575 Inspection of Atmospheric and
Low Pressure Storage Tanks.
Radiography

93 This technique was not encountered during the interventions and appears to be
restricted to inspections carried out during construction or following repairs and
modifications.
Ultrasonics
94 Use of spot pulse echo ultrasonics to carry out thickness checks of shells, floors and
roofs became more widespread from 1990 onwards. It is arguably the most practical
way of measuring the thickness of the shell, roof, floor and nozzles of a tank. Generally
tank floor inspections consisted of a pattern of 5 inspection points per floor plate.
95 Other methods such as long-range ultrasonics have proved popular for checking
corrosion deterioration on annular rings. At present this technique cannot be universally
applied since there are limitations in regard to the minimum length of projection of the
annular and its topside surface condition.
96 Crawler type scanning techniques can be used on shells but are not the norm.
Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) and saturated low frequency eddy current
(SLOFEC)
97 The use of floor scanning techniques using magnetic flux leakage and saturated low
frequency eddy currents appear to be gaining acceptance as the preferred method for
detecting and recording tank floor corrosion, even to the extent that, where it is practical
Operators now remove hot water, steam and electrically heated pipes temporarily in
order to permit the technique to be used in heated tanks. There are a number of
specialist providers and confidence in the techniques is now high.
98 There can be limitations in areas of coverage e.g. adjacent to the shell. However it
is a relatively simple task to cover small localised gaps by hand scanning.
99 HSE has just supported a research project on magnetic floor flux scanning,
Recommended practice for magnetic flux leakage inspection of atmospheric storage
tanks floors, Research Report RR 481, which has concluded that the technique has
many advantages over spot ultrasonics.
100 An important consideration when carrying out MFL and SLOFEC inspection
techniques on tank floors is the level of cleanliness of the floor. This should be clear of
magnetisable debris and fit for a detailed visual inspection as a minimum.
101 Where grit blasting is required it is generally accepted that a standard equivalent to
BS EN ISO 8501-1 Sa 2 or Sa 2.5 (or NACE and SA standards) is necessary to carry out
meaningful inspection. High pressure water jetting can be a practical alternative to grit
blasting though generally it is not thought to be as effective in some circumstances.
Depending on thickness of application the equipment can scan directly through some
types of lined floors.
MPI and dye penetrant NDT

102 In the past these techniques have been employed selectively following repair and
alterations rather than as a primary in-service inspection practice. They are useful
however where floor plates may be subject to fatigue loading, especially where
empty/full cycles are high and for crack detection of floating roof plate welds.
103 When used they tend to be applied more extensively around nozzles and at the
floor to annular joint of flat-bottomed tanks. However, the general application of MPI
NDT and its capability of revealing weld defects during tank thorough examinations, is
an issue which HSE would support.
104 Dye penetrant NDT is used where stress corrosion cracking of stainless steel tanks
is a threat. A particularly vulnerable location can be the area around steam heating coil
nozzles.
Acoustic emission
105 This technique is used, but not extensively, and appears more commonly employed
as a secondary, supporting technique and a screening tool. AE used at very high
sensitivity can evaluate the floor condition by listening for active corrosion and leakage
without taking tanks out of service. AE has also been used on cryogenic and refrigerated
storage where non-invasive inspection is the norm. In certain circumstances the
equipment can be installed on line to provide continuous data.
Vacuum box
106 The technique, which is very effective, is used more often following a floor repair
or where there is a suspected leak rather than as a normal inspection tool.
Other techniques
107 Under floor pressurisation using low pressure air and soap solution or helium and
gas sniffers have been used to detect small corrosion holes and weld defects where tanks
have leaked.
108 Less common methods such as Pulsed Eddy Current (PEC) to determine wall
thickness without the removal of insulation and where direct access to tank floors and
shells is difficult, have been employed with some success.

Inspection periodicity
109 The API and EEMUA codes offer procedures for calculating next inspection
intervals and remaining life from trendable degradation rates. Minimum thicknesses for
floors, shell plates and roofs are given in both. The interventions revealed however that
there is only limited use of these procedures. This is perhaps not too surprising given
that the period between inspections is so wide and the inherent difficulty in obtaining
reliable and accurate data (particularly for flat-bottomed tank floors) that can be
compared with previous results to derive a trend. An additional challenge arises from
the unpredictability of uniform corrosion loss.

110 Whilst the periodicity of tank inspection was drawn from the guidance given in the
codes it was often the case that the Operators set maximum endorsement intervals for
examinations less than those given in the codes. In other instances more frequent access
into tanks for cleaning and product quality purposes (e.g. aerofuels) gave opportunities
for additional thorough examinations to be carried out.
111 One Operator, whose inspection strategy involved external examinations every two
years with a thorough internal at the 12th year, introduced a procedure making use of
enhanced visual inspection supported by additional NDT at the mid-point between their
intermediate and thorough inspections.
112 Section 6 of API Std 653 suggests frequencies based on service history and from
corrosion rates determined by previous inspections. Where not known it recommends
external inspections every 5 years and internals at 10 years. Inspection intervals should
never exceed 20 years.
113 Table B.3-1 in Section B3 of EEMUA 159 sets out frequencies of tank inspection
which include external routine visuals, detailed external inspection and internal
inspection. The frequencies can vary dependant on service conditions and products
stored as well as climate conditions. By way of example the maximum interval for
internal inspections in temperate climates is given as 16 years.
114 Both the codes now recognise the value in adopting RBI principles to improve the
availability of equipment while ensuring its integrity is not compromised, though they
also highlight some limitations with respect to non-uniform degradation mechanisms
and sparse data.

Inspection reports
115 The quality of tank inspection reports varied widely. In a small number of cases
these were very comprehensive and included photographs, sketches or more detailed
drawings along with checklists. The best incorporated floor, shell and roof sketches for
vertical tanks and elevation schematics for horizontals. Many included positions of man
ways, main nozzles and small-bore branches, heating coils, drains, sumps etc. Sketches
were often used to identify thickness measurement locations and the results.
116 At other sites the quality of the inspection reports and the standard of information
recorded was poor. This is unsatisfactory. Thorough internal examinations of tanks are
carried out infrequently, and it is their quality which offers the principal means by which
the integrity of the tanks can be determined, often many years on.
117 Many examples were found in reports where unhelpful comments such as
satisfactory where seen; shell not visible insulated tank; parts inaccessible etc.
had been made by inspectors without challenge by the Operators. Inspection procedures
found at some sites acknowledged difficulties for examinations, for example with
insulated tanks or around masked or problem access areas etc. but offered no
suggestions of alternatives or of how these could be satisfactorily resolved.
118 Use of the inspection reference survey point or grid system set out in EEMUA 159
was not common though it was employed at a small number of sites. The principle was

used more widely for tank floors. There appeared great reluctance to adopt the
guidance given in the EEMUA or API codes to domed bottom or horizontal tanks even
when much of the detail in these was of obvious value. The use of the checklists set out
in both of the codes was variable though there is some evidence that recognition of their
value is increasing.
119 Frequent examples were encountered where deterioration and defects that should
have been found by inspectors had been missed. This raised serious questions about the
thoroughness of the process and the competence of those carrying out the examinations.
120 In other instances defects had been correctly identified and recorded during
inspections but no action taken by the Operators. In one case this led to the Operator
modifying their procedures by introducing corrective actions punchlists which then had
to be signed off by a senior engineer.
121 The interventions revealed a general requirement for improved inspection reporting
particularly as the period between thorough tank examinations is wide.
122 Increasing use is being made of floor scanning techniques. The quality of the
reports from these surveys is generally high, providing good detail.

GRP/HDPE tanks
123 It is a commonly held misconception that non-metallic storage tanks are suitable
for indefinite service and that they require little or no maintenance and inspection.
124 Four visits were included in the project to follow-up serious leaks, failures or
issues associated with GRP and thermoplastic storage tanks. In three of the incidents
the tanks had exceeded their original design life (calculated on the basis of creep
deformation) and had split in or near to the weld seams. Some evidence of fatigue
damage was also found in the shell of one of the tanks that leaked. HSE was also
informed of a serious fire in a Polypropylene tank caused when an electric immersion
heater failed to trip on reaching a high temperature limit.
125 Of particular concern are aspects such as material compatibility and continued
fitness-for-service for tanks approaching, or even exceeding, their original design life.
126 There are a number of codes, standards and guidance documents in widespread use
for the design and manufacture of non-metallic storage tanks. These are referenced at
the end of the report. Two of these relating to thermoplastic tanks are worthy of
mention here: DVS 2205 Parts 1-5, Design calculations for containers and apparatus
made from thermoplastics, from Germany and BS EN 12573 Parts 1-4 Welded static
non-pressurised thermoplastic storage tanks.
127 In a report produced for HSE - HSL Report HSL/2006/21, Specification and
Inspection of Thermoplastic Storage Tanks [PDF 1.87MB] [2][3], by Mr J Stonehill of
Stonehill Materials Services it was suggested that DVS 2205 would be withdrawn in
favour of the new European Standard BS EN 12573 once it was published. However,
DVS 2205 has not been withdrawn (as it is not considered to the German National
Standard and so does not need to be withdrawn under CEN Rules) and, in fact, has been

continually updated since the publication of BS EN 12573. As a consequence

manufacturers of thermoplastic tanks are currently able to choose which standard to
follow, though they should be clear of their legal duties to reduce risks as low as is
reasonably practicable whichever document is used.
128 One site had experienced a catastrophic failure of a GRP tank. The probable cause
was identified as environmental stress cracking. As a result of this incident (and another
similar failure recently) and a number of failures of thermoplastic storage tanks work is
in hand to revise HSE Guidance Note PM 75, Glass reinforced plastic vessels and
tanks: advice to users.
129 As a result of concerns about the design, material selection, manufacture,
installation, use and inspection of HDPE tanks, HSE has formed a working group to try
and resolve a number of issues, update supporting technical references and, where
necessary, publish new guidance.

Horizontal tanks
130 The arrangements for managing the integrity of horizontal tanks on most sites
visited during the course of the project were poor. Sites, which had comprehensive tank
integrity management programmes in place for their vertical storage tanks, had nothing
so thorough for horizontal tanks. This was not uncommon.
131 Many riveted construction horizontal tanks of age were still seen in use. Other
examples were observed where tanks clearly designed for vertical use had been
modified and installed horizontally. Little or no information was available concerning
the thickness of the shell wall directly under the saddle supports. On many bona-fide
horizontal tanks these areas are reinforced with doubler plates.
132 A maintenance and inspection regime at one Operators site treated horizontal
storage tanks in a similar manner to that in place for their pressure vessels even though
these were not in pressurised service.
133 BS 2594: 1975, Carbon steel welded horizontal cylindrical storage tanks is a
recognised manufacturing standard for atmospheric horizontal storage tanks[3], however
it does not deal with issues of in-service inspection and maintenance matters and it has
been noted that there is no other specific guidance material for this type of tank.
134 Horizontal tanks can be vulnerable to corrosion above the saddles (which may or
may not be integral to the tank). In certain applications, where thermal expansion is
expected, the tank may be supported on steel saddles which are not physically attached
to the shell. In other instances the saddles may be fully seam welded to the shell while
in other cases the welding is not continuous. Concrete type saddles often have bitumen
or other packing material between them and the tank shell. These can often be a
trapping point for water. The interventions revealed many instances of serious corrosion
around the saddle areas.[4]
135 Localised corrosion was commonly found around small-bore piping stubs and at
gantry, handrail attachment points plus other vulnerable areas such as bottom drains.

136 At one site a tank, originally designed as a vertical tank, was being used in the
horizontal position to store waste hazardous liquids without any technical justification.
137 The quality of inspection reports for horizontal tanks was, if anything, worse than
that found for verticals. In only a small number of cases were drawings and sketches
employed to detail inspection locations and record results.

Piping, bellows and flexible joints

138 Questions involving piping, bellows and other flexible joints were not central to
this study. Nevertheless because of their close association with tanks some of the issues
are worthy of comment.
Piping
139 It was not uncommon to find poor piping standards in tank farm areas. There
seems little doubt that piping in these areas is not given the same level of attention as
process piping.
140 Examples of badly aligned, supported and corroded piping were widespread.
Other features such as buried piping and masked areas through bund penetrations were
also of concern due to the difficulty of carrying out meaningful inspections at these
locations. Failures are not uncommon due to wall thinning corrosion of piping caused
by trapped water in the bund wall.
141 It was common to find piping lying unsupported just above and on the ground.
Even where there was poor bund drainage piping was seen partially or completely
submerged under water.
Bellows and flexible joints
142 At one site piping angular displacement and expansion directly away from the
tanks was managed by employing flexible type couplings. Following a failure it was
established that the coupling pressure rating was less than the maximum delivery head
of the associated pumping system.
143 Bellows and other purpose designed flexible joints are often an integral part of tank
installations. They are installed where settlement or other movement between the tank
and the downstream piping is greater than can be accommodated in the piping design or
where expansion and contraction of the shell is expected. They are often fitted at the
tank side of the first isolation.
144 Inspections of these joints may be difficult owing to their construction. Often
bellows convolutions are protected by steel covers. Operators should ensure that the
integrity of these vulnerable components is not missed during the tank examinations.
145 Ideally they should be subject to close visual inspection and measurement (for
corrosion, alignment, squirm, seizure of guides, hinges, links etc.) at intermediate
inspections, and, where possible, removal with thorough NDT plus pressure testing

during tank outages. Detailed inspection should also be carried out following any
system excursion or abnormal external event.
146 In some instances Operators had established that tanks were no longer subject to
settlement problems and examples were found where technical reviews were being
carried out to determine whether flexible connections could be removed by utilising
piping expansion loops and spring type supports.

Venting and relief

147 Proper venting and relief is critical to protect against possible catastrophic failure
of atmospheric storage tanks. The interventions revealed however that this is not a
well-understood concept, and numerous examples were found of poor maintenance and
inspection standards of venting equipment.
148 It is important to understand the differences between normal pressure/vacuum
relief and emergency pressure relief. Normal venting rates, which cater for liquid
movement pumping-in and pumping-out, plus thermal outbreathing and inbreathing, can
be calculated using appropriate formula. Emergency venting in the case of external fire
may require that the tank has a frangible type roof or additional equipment such as
hinged lids fitted (sometimes referred to as Whessoe Lids). Advice on emergency
venting and frangible roofs is given in Appendix F of BS 2654; API 650 and EEMUA
180:96 Guide for Designers and Users on Frangible Roof Joints for Fixed Roof Storage
Tanks.
149 For normal venting tanks can be fitted with a variety of pressure and vacuum relief
devices. These may range from simple open vents (swan neck or Chinese hats) to more
complex combined pressure-vacuum valves.
150 Roof vents and pressurevacuum valves should be inspected at regular intervals to
ensure they function properly. It is not unknown for vents to be blocked by birds nests,
vermin, debris and ice, or even purposely during maintenance. Open vents should be
installed with wire netting with openings of at least 6mm to prevent birds nesting.
Note: It is not normal to fit flame arrestors to tanks equipped with PV-valves.
151 Pressurevacuum valves are vulnerable to blockage or mal-operation caused by
contact with the vapour of waxing, sublimating, crystallising or polymerising materials.
Phenol, aniline and styrene are typical examples. In some of these cases PV-valves can
be trace heated and insulated and sometimes low temperature alarms are fitted.
152 Good schemes of examination adopted frequencies of examination based on the
likelihood of vent or PV valve failure, and the scope included removal of the valves for
checks, cleaning and resetting of pallets. Other considerations for inspection may be
required if tanks are equipped with nitrogen blanketing systems.

Second hand tanks

153 The inspections revealed that the use of second-hand tanks is common. In many
cases the design and codes used for the tank construction or the history of use were not
known. This was not limited to smaller sites and in many cases re-evaluations had been

undertaken on tanks where there was no history or where the history was lost when the
site ownership changed.
154 In some cases Operators have been requested to carry out design gap analyses
where original design information was not available, and particularly where there was
little or no baseline data and tank history.
155 At one site, most of the tanks had been purchased from suppliers of second hand
tanks and pressure vessels without any supporting documentation. They had then been
put into service without any detailed technical fitness-for-service assessments. This is
not good practice.

Coatings and linings

156 Comprehensive guidance on tank coatings and protection is given in API RP 652,
Lining of Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Bottoms, and EEMUA Publication
No. 183: 1999, Guide for the prevention of bottom leakage from vertical, cylindrical,
steel storage tanks.
157 Epoxy coatings are frequently used to protect tank floors and the lower shell
strakes but care is needed to ensure that the tank surfaces are properly prepared before
the coating is applied and that the correct thickness and curing procedures are followed
as breaks in the coating can lead to accelerated corrosion. Other coating products are
available that offer improved resistance to chemical attack and the manufacturers advice
should be sought for particular applications.
158 Cathodic protection systems for tanks were not in widespread use on the sites
visited during the course of the project. It should be noted that cathodic protection
systems should not be used where the tank is founded on bitumen/sand or similar, as a
hydrocarbon layer will provide a high resistance barrier to prevent the current passing
through.
159 The subject of testing and examination requirements for coating repairs does not
appear to be addressed by API Std 653 or EEMUA 159 but some information is
contained in API RP 575 and also API RP 652 Lining of Aboveground Petroleum
Storage Tank Bottoms

Hydrotesting
160 There are a number of reasons why British and API Standards require that storage
tanks are filled to the top of the shells with water for testing [5].
For example:

to demonstrate that the tank is strong enough to withstand the liquid pressure
during service
to demonstrate that there are no leaks
to demonstrate that the tank foundation can carry the load of the tank and its
contents. Note: settlement checks should be undertaken during the test.

to allow plastic yielding in welds where there are localised high stress peaks
(shakedown)

161 Almost all hydrotesting is therefore carried immediately after construction of the
tank. The codes do however specify that hydrotesting is also carried out after
significant repairs or modifications have been made.
162 Re-hydrotesting is normally required after:

partial or complete replacement of bottom plates

partial or complete replacement of annular plates
repairs to the shell to bottom fillet welds
installation of new shell plates or insert plates
installation of nozzles or manways

163 The principal codes also highlight important factors that should be considered
before carrying out hydrotests such as water quality and temperature, filling rates, hold
times, filling and emptying procedures.
164 API Std 653 sets out a number of conditions which allow a tank back into service
after modifications or alterations without hydrotesting. Section 16 of EEMUA 159 also
gives advice on this matter.
165 It should be noted that the requirements for hydrostatic testing following repairs
are more stringent in EEMUA 159 (as amended in February 2004) than API Std 653,
particularly following shell jacking operations. It is also worth noting that API Std 653
(clause 12.3.2.7) permits fitness-for-service assessments to be adopted to exempt a
repair from hydrostatic testing but is silent on the procedures and acceptance criteria
that should be followed. This is an area that may merit further discussion.

Codes and guidance

Design codes
Steel vertical tanks
BS 2654:
1989

Specification for Manufacture of vertical steel welded non-refrigerated

storage tanks with butt-welded shells for the petroleum industry, (now
superseded by BS EN 14015)

API Std
620

Design and construction of atmospheric and low pressure storage tanks

API Std
650

Welded steel storage tanks for oil storage

BS EN
14015:
2004

Specification for the design and manufacture of site built, vertical,

cylindrical, flat-bottomed, above ground, welded, steel tanks for the storage
of liquids at ambient temperature and above.

Steel horizontal tanks

BS 2594:
1975

Carbon steel welded horizontal cylindrical storage tanks, (now superseded

by BS EN 12285 Parts 1 and 2)

BS 799-5:
1987

Oil burning equipment specification of oil storage tanks

UL 142

Steel Aboveground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids

BS EN
122851:2003

Workshop fabricated steel tanks. Horizontal cylindrical single skin and

double skin tanks for the underground storage of flammable and nonflammable water polluting liquids

BS EN
122852:2005

Workshop fabricated steel tanks. Horizontal cylindrical single skin and

double skin tanks for the aboveground storage of flammable and nonflammable water polluting liquids SS

Vertical GRP tanks

BS 4994:
1987

Specification for design and construction of vessels and tanks in reinforced

plastics

API RP 12R1

Fibre reinforced plastic tanks

Vertical thermoplastic tanks

DVS 2205 Parts 1-5

Design calculations for containers and apparatus made from

thermoplastics

ASTM D1998-97

Standard specification for polyethylene upright storage tanks

BS EN 12573 Parts
1-4

Welded static non-pressurized thermoplastic tanks

Supporting guidance (Inspection and continued fitness for service)

EEMUA Publication Number 159: 2003 (amended 2004 and 2005), Users Guide to the
Inspection, Maintenance and Repair of Aboveground Vertical Cylindrical Steel Storage
Tanks
API Std 653: Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction
API RP 575: Inspection of Atmospheric and Low Pressure Storage Tanks
PM 75: Glass reinforced plastic vessels and tanks: advice to users

Supporting guidance (General)

A number of sources of guidance and further information were consulted during the
course of the project and the following were found to be particularly helpful:
Chemical storage tank systems good practice: Guidance on design, manufacture,
installation, operation, inspection and maintenance (C598), published by CIRIA in
2003 (ISBN 0 86017 598 7).
EEMUA Publication Number 183: 1999, Guide for the prevention of bottom leakage
from vertical, cylindrical, steel storage tanks
HSE Research Report RR 481, Recommended practice for magnetic flux leakage
inspection of atmospheric storage tanks floors
EEMUA 180:96 Guide for Designers and Users on Frangible Roof Joints for Fixed
Roof Storage Tanks
Guide to Storage Tanks and Equipment, Bob Long and Bob Garner, Professional
Engineering Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1860584314 [6]
API RP 651: Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Storage Tanks
API RP 652: Lining of Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Bottoms
HSL Report HSL/2006/21: Specification and Inspection of Thermoplastic Storage
Tanks
HSG 41: Petrol Filling Stations: Construction and Operation
HSG 176: Storage of flammable liquids in tanks

HSG 235: Guidance on the storage of Hydrochloric and Nitric Acid in tanks
National Sulphuric Acid Association (NSAA) Recommended guidelines for the bulk
storage of sulphuric acid, oleum and liquid sulphur trioxide

Footnotes - Link URLs in this page

1. API Std 653 or EEMUA 159 standards
http://www.eemua.org/t_stanks_l1.htm
2. HSL Report HSL/2006/21, Specification and Inspection of
Thermoplastic Storage Tanks [PDF 1.87MB]
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2006/hsl0621.pdf
3. Footnotes - Link URLs in this pageAPI Std 653 or EEMUA 159
standardshttp://www.eemua.org/t_stanks_l1.htmHSL Report
HSL/2006/21, Specification and Inspection of Thermoplastic Storage
Tanks [PDF
1.87MB]http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2006/hsl0621.pdf
[3]
Footnotes
1.

Stainless steel tanks fall outside the scope of this standard. Appendix S of API
620 or Underwriters Laboratory Inc. Standard for safety, UL 142, Steel
aboveground tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids may have been
more appropriate. [back to 1]
2. Although it is common to refer to some tanks as flat-bottomed, the floor may
actually be designed cone-up or cone-down. Cone-up floors are the most
common and allow settled water or bottoms product to gravitate to sumps around
the periphery of the tanks. Cone-down floors normally have a sump at the centre
of the tank.
For tanks in crude oil or other liquid hydrocarbon service any entrained water in
the product or entering through seals or natural breathing, will naturally collect as
a layer in the bottom. This is often referred to as a water bottom. Along with
any sediment it can often contain aggressive compounds and in some instances
monitoring the pH of drained water may be required as a corrosion control. It is
important that Operators adopt good drainage procedures where water can
accumulate in the bottom of tanks. [back to 2]
3. Now superseded by BS EN 12285 Parts 1 and 2. [back to 3 ]
4. At the present time it is understood that NDT techniques are not available which
can detect localised shell corrosion above and around the saddle areas from
outside of the tank. In most cases assessment of deterioration in these areas will
require internal access. [back to 4 ]
5. Note that unlike BS 2654 tanks designed and manufactured to API Std 650 are
designed for a stated product specific gravity. If the tank operator wishes to store
products of higher specific gravity in the tank at some later stage then a lower
maximum filling height should be determined to prevent the tank being
overstressed (see page 51 in Guide to Storage Tanks and Equipment, by Bob
Long and Bob Garner). [back to 5 ]

6.

A comprehensive description of the development of internationally recognised

design and construction codes for both steel and concrete storage tanks is given
in Section 2.9 of this reference book. [back to 6 ]