Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Kay  
#1 Posted : 14 June 2010 16:04:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Kay

Hi Apologies for my appaling lack of technical terms! What I'm trying to check is about a Diesel tank (30,000 litres capacity), it has a suitable bund but an auditor has advised that the dispenser bit, i.e. the same as the bit you hold when you fill your car at a petrol station, should be within the bund enclosure. I was surprised because we thought the tank had been installed in accordance with the prevention of Pollution (Oil Storage) regs, but he seemed to think it wasn't. I've had a look at the PPG but wasn't sure what it meant. If anyone could clarify for me that would be great. Thanks in advance, Kay
Andy Adams  
#2 Posted : 14 June 2010 21:12:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Andy Adams

Hi Kay, I have been audited on this bit of Envionmental Legislation and I am afraid the auditor is correct. The nozzle (the bit you are refering too) should be kept within the bund, and should be locked unless in use. The reason for storage within the bund is to catch any drips from the nozzle. The locking of the nozzle is supposed to stop un-authorised people using the nozzle, it also meant to stop vandals spraying diesel everywhere. Hope this answers your question.
alan_uk  
#3 Posted : 15 June 2010 15:34:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
alan_uk

I would argue that the nozzle need not be actually contained in the main tank bund but should certainly have an adequate catchment or bund of its own for smaller spills etc. This would apply if it were a pumped system with relevant check valves/controls so you can't simply drain the tank through the nozzle by accident. To contain the nozzle in the main bund could cause all kinds of additional problems and risks like people having to climb over bund walls to get to it. (obviously I don't know type / size of bunding etc.) If a gravity fed system/ manual control where the tank could be drained through the nozzle by accident or significant splillage caused, then I can see no way around having to contain the nozzle within the bund.
boblewis  
#4 Posted : 15 June 2010 17:49:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

I am totally in agreement with Alan. Through the nozzle is a very quick way of dumping the contents out of the bunded area - if you want separate nozzle catchment it should be the same size as the bund!!! Bob
johnld  
#5 Posted : 15 June 2010 19:24:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
johnld

Kay If you folow this link http://www.defra.gov.uk/.../documents/oil_store.pdf It takes you to the guidance on the Oil Storage Regs. And covers the advice given by Bob and Alan John
NR  
#6 Posted : 16 June 2010 11:33:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NR

How do you meet these requirements if your tank is double skinned and therfore doesn't sit within a bund?
johnld  
#7 Posted : 16 June 2010 15:25:08(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
johnld

NR, Para 32 of the guidance covers double skinned tanks and circumstances where a bund may not be required John
Kay  
#8 Posted : 16 June 2010 15:55:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Kay

Hi Folks Thanks for all the info. The main tank has a pump like an old one from a petrol station which is inside the bund, and can only be activated by a swipe fob and entry of an authorised registration no. However the pipe and nozzle connected to this pump are outside the bund wall. The bund wall is approx 1.5m high i.e. a little too high for people to reach the nozzle out of. The pipe runs down the outside of the wall, along the ground, and up into the nozzle holder. Any ideas of an easy way to bring this arrangement up to scratch? Also there is a double skinned red diesel tank which has a nozzle on a flexi hose sticking out of the side, with a kind of drip tray under the nozzle. it is not within the bund wall as we thought double skinned tanks didn't need to be. Does that sound inadequate too? Thanks for your help, Kay
boblewis  
#9 Posted : 17 June 2010 10:30:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Kay Double skinned tanks still require the storage of the nozzle within the catchment zone of the bund/skin. I think it also best to remember that double skins only are effective if the puncture is more than half way up the tank. Below this level there will still be spillage into the environment. My advice is to ensure these type of tanks are stored in a bunded area when not required to be transported around site. Bob
Kay  
#10 Posted : 18 June 2010 15:11:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Kay

Hello again I think maybe we could do with a visit then some quotes or advice, does anyone know of a company that offers this type of service? Or anyone that could advise from a picture? Thanks
bob youel  
#11 Posted : 18 June 2010 15:16:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

there is also a raft of environmental law that applies so it can be a big issue to manage where a simple bund can solve most of the problems
Phil Grace  
#12 Posted : 21 June 2010 10:30:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

It is a popular misconception that a double skinned tank does not require a bund. Double skin construction does not remove the need for a bund. Several posters have pointed out that the nozzle requires a method of containing drips/leaks - and if dispensing is by gravity then there is the potential for the entie contents to empy over the floor - unless: a) the nozzle is stored within the main bund or b) the hose is fitted with some form of excess flow valve The other thing to bear in mind is that a plastic double skin tank could be "speared" by a FLT and a proportion of the contents could then end up on the floor. A bund would help prevent such mechnical damage as well as catching any leaks. Phil
Kay  
#13 Posted : 21 June 2010 15:13:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Kay

Aaargh! I just typed and perfected a post only to find I'd been logged out! Anyway, I was going to say, thanks for all the posts and useful input. My problem is that we spent money bringing the tanks up to (what we thought was) the correct standard and now it sounds like we were mislead and yet more work is required. This means I will not have an easy ride to make it happen. Hence why I want to be doubley sure that what we have currently isn't good enough, and that whatever I suggest is the best possible and most cost effective solution. Regarding the (metal) red diesel double skinned tank, the tank is raised up ~1.5m on legs inside a skin which must be 200 - 300% capacity. Its nozzle has a drip tray that drains into this large outer skin. I gather that this is not adequate - correct? If so, then I guess we need to knock down the existing bund and make a new one big enough for both. But I'm still not clear on how the nozzles can be stored inside it and still be accessible for people to fill up. I would really like to show someone a picture and get some site specific advice, does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks very much, Kay
Phil Grace  
#14 Posted : 21 June 2010 15:26:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

Kay, From your description I think it seems as if all is acceptable. I presume that the "skin" you refer to is essentially an open topped metal tank - if it has the capacity you state the it meets all current requirements. If as you state the sides are so high that a person could not reach over to grasp the nozzle - then put a step alongside the "skin". But whatever you do make sure it is reasonably easy/convenient for user to reach nozzle and replace after use - otherwise the temptation will be to leave it on the gorund or similar..! Hope this helps
Phil Grace  
#15 Posted : 21 June 2010 15:32:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

Kay, Not sure if anyone else has mentioned the Env Agency PPG series of publications is of great value. PPG2 deals with oil storage, covers the issue of double skin tanks and has a neat sketch. http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/ppg2a.pdf
IanS  
#16 Posted : 21 June 2010 16:56:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
IanS

Kay, we have a diesel storage tank just as you describe except our nozzle is in a capsule. An ISO14001 auditor questioned its compliance with the regs and gave us a non-conformance. It just so happened our EA inspector was on site the following day and passed it as perfectly adequate. If you pm me with your e-mail I can let you have a photo if it will help.
bleve  
#17 Posted : 21 June 2010 18:47:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

If you have a positive displacement pump then your loss volume will be the fuel between pump outlet and nozzle, this should result in the provision of a catchment/bund area equal to 110-150% of this volume. However, from your description, you say that the nozzle catchemnt area is connected to the secondary containment? If that is the case then the secondary containment will be of no or little use as a release of primary containment into the secondary containment will result in a loss of containment from the nozzle catchment tray?????
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.