Environmental risk assessment of bulk storage facilities:

A screening tool

User guide
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL

USER GUIDE

First edition

May 2009

Published by
ENERGY INSTITUTE, LONDON
The Energy Institute is a professional membership body incorporated by Royal Charter 2003
Registered charity number 1097899
The Energy Institute (EI) is the leading chartered professional membership body supporting individuals and organisations across the energy
industry. With a combined membership of over 13 500 individuals and 300 companies in 100 countries, it provides an independent
focal point for the energy community and a powerful voice to engage business and industry, government, academia and the public
internationally.

As a Royal Charter organisation, the EI offers professional recognition and sustains personal career development through the accreditation
and delivery of training courses, conferences and publications and networking opportunities. It also runs a highly valued technical work
programme, comprising original independent research and investigations, and the provision of IP technical publications to provide the
international industry with information and guidance on key current and future issues.

The EI promotes the safe, environmentally responsible and efficient supply and use of energy in all its forms and applications. In fulfilling
this purpose the EI addresses the depth and breadth of energy and the energy system, from upstream and downstream hydrocarbons
and other primary fuels and renewables, to power generation, transmission and distribution to sustainable development, demand side
management and energy efficiency. Offering learning and networking opportunities to support career development, the EI provides a
home to all those working in energy, and a scientific and technical reservoir of knowledge for industry.

This publication has been produced as a result of work carried out within the Technical Team of the Energy Institute (EI), funded by the EIs
Technical Partners. The EIs Technical Work Programme provides industry with cost-effective, value-adding knowledge on key current and
future issues affecting those operating in the energy sector, both in the UK and internationally.

For further information, please visit http://www.energyinst.org

The EI gratefully acknowledges the financial contributions towards the scientific and technical programme
from the following companies

BG Group Maersk Oil North Sea UK Limited

BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd Murco Petroleum Ltd
BP Oil UK Ltd Nexen
Centrica Saudi Aramco
Chevron Shell UK Oil Products Limited
ConocoPhillips Ltd Shell U.K. Exploration and Production Ltd
ENI Statoil Hydro
E. ON UK Talisman Energy (UK) Ltd
ExxonMobil International Ltd Total E&P UK plc
Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd Total UK Limited

Copyright 2009 by the Energy Institute, London.

The Energy Institute is a professional membership body incorporated by Royal Charter 2003.
Registered charity number 1097899, England
All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced by any means, or transmitted or translated into
a machine language without the written permission of the publisher.

ISBN 978 0 85293 393 0

Published by the Energy Institute

The information contained in this publication is provided as guidance only and while every reasonable care has been taken to ensure
the accuracy of its contents, the Energy Institute cannot accept any responsibility for any action taken, or not taken, on the basis of this
information. The Energy Institute shall not be liable to any person for any loss or damage which may arise from the use of any of the
information contained in any of its publications.

Further copies can be obtained from: Portland Customer Services, Commerce Way, Whitehall Industrial Estate, Colchester CO2 8HP, UK.
t: +44 (0)1206 796 351 e: sales@portland-services.com

Electronic access to EI and IP publications is available via our website, www.energyinstpubs.org.uk.

Documents can be purchased online as downloadable pdfs or on an annual subscription for single users and companies.
For more information, contact the EI Publications Team.
e: pubs@energyinst.org
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

CONTENTS
Page

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

1 Scope and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Screening assessment methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1 Step 1: Initial assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Step 2: Vulnerability assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Step 3: Pollution prevention measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Step 4: Overall risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Step 5: Mitigation measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Information resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Annexes:
Annex A Example risk phrases for selected materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Annex B Example risk phrases for selected petroleum industry products . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Annex C Petroleum industry safety integrity level assessment terminology . . . . . . . . 13
Annex D Screening assessment flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Annex E Glossary of terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figures:
Figure 1 Overall risk matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

III
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was commissioned by the Energy Institutes Soil Waste Groundwater Group.

The EI wishes to record its appreciation of the work carried out by the Soil Waste Groundwater Group
and others who participated in the development of the screening tool and technical review stages.
In particular the EI would like to thank the following companies/organisations for their valuable
contributions:

Atkins Limited
BP
Chevron
ConocoPhillips
Environment Agency
ExxonMobil
Process Safety Leadership Group Working Group 4: Secondary and Tertiary Containment
Shell
Brian Smithers
Tank Storage Association
Total
Vopak

The screening tool is based on initial developmental work undertaken for the Energy Institute by IKM
Consulting Limited.

IV
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

1 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Environmental risk assessment of bulk storage facilities screening tool ('the tool') assesses
the risk to the environment of above-ground bulk liquid storage tanks (ASTs) by considering
the potential for an uncontained release of stored material which may impact upon nearby
sensitive receptors. This report sets out the rationale and fundamental assumptions behind
the tool.
Clearly, it is the aim of any storage facility operator to contain stored liquids within the
primary containment (i.e. the tank). It should be understood that any assumption of a release
inherent in this methodology is for the purposes of assessing the risk to the environment
only.
A detailed probabilistic risk assessment of a storage tank facility can be a time-
consuming and costly undertaking. For this reason, the Energy Institute commissioned the
development of this screening tool to enable storage tank operators to carry out a rapid
assessment of their facilities based upon readily available, or easily obtainable, information
on the receiving environment and the design and operation of the primary, secondary and
tertiary pollution prevention measures (PPM).
The screening methodology is based upon a standard source-pathway-receptor
model and takes into account factors such as the hazardous properties of the stored material,
the proximity and sensitivity of nearby surface and sub-surface receptors, the geological
setting of the storage site and the PPM that are in place.
Owing to their global applicability in the context of storage facilities (and, in particular,
storage facilities holding hazardous liquids), the tool takes account of some of the outcomes
of the investigation into the incident at the Buncefield storage facility (UK, December 2005).
Users may consider reference to national containment policies for the country of use helpful in
the context of deploying this tool (where available for example, the UK COMAH Competent
authority policy on containment of bulk hazardous liquids).
The tool comprises one methodology in the first tier of available risk assessment
techniques and is a screening device for the environmental risks associated with the storage
of bulk liquid in a particular location: it does not present a numerically evaluated, probabilistic
assessment of the likelihood of a particular event, nor does it attempt to quantify the likely
consequence of that event. The tool does not provide a definitive site specific assessment and
should only be used for screening purposes.
It is important to note that the tool does not consider toxicity to humans: alternative
means of assessment (or, indeed, containment) may be appropriate in this regard.

1 COMAH Competent authority policy on containment of bulk hazardous liquids at COMAH establishments;
HSE/Environment Agency/SEPA; February 2008; note that the screening tool does not fully address the
detailed requirements of this policy owing to its UK specificity.

1
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

1.2 BACKGROUND

The European Directive 96/61/EC on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) ('the
Directive') as enacted in the UK under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (now
implemented in England and Wales under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales)
Regulations 2007 (SI 2007 No. 3538)) requires operators of bulk hazardous materials
storage facilities (installations) to use best available techniques (BAT) to prevent or minimise
pollution from the operation of the installation, such that significant pollution will not be
caused. Guidance on what represents BAT is provided in the Reference document on best
available techniques on emissions from storage, commonly referred to as the Storage BReF
Note.
In the UK, an installation covered by the Directive must obtain a permit from the
Environment Agency (England and Wales), the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
(SEPA Scotland) or the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), in order to operate. A
permit must be applied for and an evaluation of BAT for the installation a 'BAT assessment'
must be included within the application.
Above-ground storage tanks have the potential to cause pollution to the surface
and sub-surface environments via the release of potentially hazardous liquids, where a
release can arise through (for example) leakage, corrosion-induced failure of the tank and its
associated pipework, tank over-filling or, in the extreme case, tank rupture. The likelihood of
the occurrence of a release will be dependent upon the PPM, including a range of primary
containment factors such as the tanks design specification, control systems (e.g. gauging
and alarms), the degree of corrosion protection and the extent and frequency of inspection
and condition monitoring regimes.
Storage tanks should be equipped with secondary containment (e.g. bunding)
which provides a measure of security against the spread of pollution should a loss of
primary containment occur. The effectiveness of the secondary containment as a PPM
including its effectiveness at preventing a spillage from penetrating the underlying ground
and groundwater is dependent upon its capacity, materials of construction and physical
condition.
Storage facilities should also be equipped with tertiary containment to minimise
the consequence of potential failures in the primary and secondary containment systems by
providing an additional barrier to prevent the uncontrolled spread of any lost bulk liquids.
The effectiveness of the tertiary containment PPM is dependent on a range of factors which
include independence from the secondary containment, impermeability to water and the
stored liquid, cellular construction (with the facility to isolate specific cells) and the capacity
to hold the stored liquid and foreseeable entrained or dissolved pollutants.
The design and installation of all PPM should provide for the retention of full
containment capability under the circumstances of prolonged exposure to fire, recognising

2 Bulk storage is covered under the following sections of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Environmental permitting
(England and Wales) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007 No. 3538): section 1.2 Part A (1) (h) 'The loading, unloading,
handling or storage of, or the physical, chemical or thermal treatment of (i) crude oil; (ii) stabilised crude
petroleum; (iii) crude shale oil; (iv) where related to another activity described in this paragraph, any
associated gas or condensate; or (v) emulsified hydrocarbons intended for use as a fuel.'; and, Section 4.8
Part B (a) 'The storage in tanks, other than in tanks for the time being forming part of a powered vehicle,
of any of the substances listed below except where the total storage capacity of the tanks installed at the
location in question in which the relevant substance may be stored is less than the figure specified below in
relation to that substance (i) one or more acrylates, 20 tonnes (in aggregate); (ii) acrylonitrile, 20 tonnes;
(iii) anhydrous ammonia, 100 tonnes; (iv) anhydrous hydrogen fluoride, 1 tonne; (v) toluene di-isocyanate,
20 tonnes; (vi) vinyl chloride monomer, 20 tonnes; (vii) ethylene, 8,000 tonnes.'

2
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

the potential for premature failure which the fire scenario presents. Resistance to fire damage
leading to loss of containment should therefore be an inherent component of the design and
installation of the PPM.
In addition, secondary and tertiary containment PPMs should take into account the
need to hold and contain significant volumes of (potentially contaminated) firewater which
may arise in the fire scenario. The holding capacity should be based on a realistic, worst case
assessment of the foreseeable volumes of firewater which may be generated.
Operational procedures (e.g. covering material transfers or bulk loading or unloading
activities) and training of operational staff in their application provide further measures for
the control and prevention of potential releases. Emergency response systems are also very
important: it is essential that such emergency response measures are available for rapid
deployment and that their deployment and use is rehearsed on a regular basis.
The overall environmental risk posed by a storage facility will be dependent upon
the condition of the source (i.e. the storage tank and its contents, together with associated
PPMs), the presence of a pathway (e.g. perhaps presented by porous secondary containment
and permeable subsurface geological formations) and the presence of a receptor (such as an
aquifer).
The primary purpose of the assessment tool is to enable the determination of the
environmental risk in qualitative terms (low, medium or high) and the exploration of options
for the reduction of this risk. However, the screening tool may equally be deployed in support
of applications and BAT assessments required under IPPC and general regulatory interactions
with the Regulator (e.g. the Environment Agency) on the subject of bulk hazardous materials
storage risk.
The screening tool concept was originally developed in Microsoft Excel and was
subjected to a comprehensive field trial by a number of tank storage operators over an
extended period of time. The tool has now been completely rebuilt in Microsoft Access
(which facilitates packaging as a universally downloadable, executable program with in-built
Help facility and guidance), taking into account the following:
The feedback from the field trial received from the storage tank operators and the
members of the EI Working Group (including the Environment Agency).
The latest guidance arising from the investigation into the major incident at the
Buncefield oil storage and transfer depot, Hemel Hempstead, on 11 December
2005.
The latest guidance from the Environment Agency on the protection of groundwater
(GP3).

The screening tool is located on the Energy Institute website (http://www.energyinst.org).

1.3 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the screening tool are as follows:

To provide a qualitative assessment of the risk presented to the environment of above-
ground bulk liquid storage tanks by considering the potential for an uncontained
release of a hazardous material which may impact upon nearby sensitive receptors.
To identify additional measures which could be implemented to reduce the
environmental risk of a storage facility and to prioritise them according to their cost
effectiveness in terms of risk reduction versus cost of implementation.
To support an application and BAT assessment required under IPPC, as implemented
by the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007 No.
3538), or general regulatory interactions with the Regulator (e.g. the Environment
Agency) on the subject of bulk hazardous materials storage risk.

3
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

2 SCREENING ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The screening tool methodology operates in Microsoft Access and is based on the five-step
process highlighted below. It is user friendly and predominantly based on selection from
drop-down listings in response to targeted questions.
Aspects of each step are described in more detail below.
Step 1: Initial assessment;
Step 2: Vulnerability assessment;
Step 3: Assessment of pollution prevention measures;
Primary containment;
Secondary containment;
Tertiary and firewater containment;
Step 4: Overall risk assessment, and
Step 5: Exploration and evaluation of mitigation measures.

All sections of the tool have an information button labelled 'Help with this screen?' providing
in-process guidance for the use of the tool. Likewise, most questions within the tool have
a similar information button providing guidance for the specific question, where this is
appropriate.

2.1 STEP 1: INITIAL ASSESSMENT

The initial assessment is designed to determine whether there is a source-pathway-receptor

linkage for the subject storage facility by requiring information on the properties of the
product and the presence of nearby receptors. Specification of material properties is based
on standard risk phrases, examples of which are provided in Annex A (for an alcohol, a
chlorinated DNAPL and two foodstuff materials) and Annex B (for selected petroleum industry
products unleaded gasoline, diesel, biodiesel and Jet A-1). However, the tool incorporates
a full listing of risk phrases via an embedded drop-down table which facilitates easy selection
into the assessment according to established material properties.
Likewise, an embedded drop-down table offers a range of options with regard to
sensitive receptors which can be selected into the assessment, for example, the presence of
an aquifer, water abstractions, tidal surface waters, etc.
A key aspect of the initial assessment is determining whether the product is flammable
or highly flammable, which predetermines whether the firewater containment assessment is
required within the full screening assessment. If the product is non-flammable then the tool
will automatically assign the firewater containment assessment to low risk and answer the
questions not applicable.
If the source-pathway-receptor linkage is unbroken, the tool indicates that the risk
assessment is required and Steps 2 to 5 must be completed. If the linkage is broken, for
example, owing to the absence of receptors, or if the material stored is not hazardous, then
the tool indicates that no further assessment will be required.
The environmental risk rating is developed from the two key assessment steps of the
tool: the vulnerability assessment (Step 2) and the PPM assessment (Step 3), which is divided
into assessment of primary, secondary and tertiary containment.

4
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

2.2 STEP 2: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

The purpose of the vulnerability assessment is to provide information upon which an

assessment of the vulnerability of the environment surrounding and underlying the storage
facility may be based. The tool therefore considers the nature of the underlying ground and
groundwater and the proximity of surface water via a number of questions which offer a
drop-down selection of answers.
Where information is not known, details should be obtained (for a small cost) from
the information resources listed in Section 3. Alternatively, the 'dont know' drop-down
option can be selected, although it should be noted that this option automatically assigns
the highest level of vulnerability.
An evaluation of the environmental vulnerability is given in the top right-hand corner
of the screen in the form of a simple 'traffic light', for universal understanding: green for
low vulnerability, amber for medium vulnerability and red for high vulnerability. In order to
establish the rating, all questions in the section must be completed. The traffic light rating is
also reproduced for individual questions to the right of each question.

2.3 STEP 3: POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES

The PPM assessment is made up of three individual evaluations covering primary, secondary,
and tertiary and firewater containment, which are described below:
Primary containment requires information upon which an assessment can be made
of the likelihood of a release occurring from an above-ground storage tank based
upon factors such as its design and control techniques (e.g., level gauging, alarms,
etc).
Secondary containment the principal concern here is with the design and condition
of storage tank bunding rather than the tank itself, based upon factors such as
penetration by pipe work, materials of construction, resistance to fire, etc.
Tertiary and firewater containment requires information on whether additional
barriers are in place to contain and prevent the spread of liquid if the primary and
secondary containment systems should fail and, if the stored product is flammable,
information on firewater containment measures and fire resistance.

As for the vulnerability assessment, the risk rating system for the PPM is based on a traffic
light indicator. Risk ratings are given to the individual assessments (primary, secondary, and
tertiary and firewater) but to generate the overall risk rating for PPM, all three assessments
must be completed. As with the vulnerability assessment, individual ratings are provided for
each assessment question response.

5
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

2.4 STEP 4: OVERALL RISK ASSESSMENT

The screening tool generates a qualitative ranking of the risk to the environment, based on
the vulnerability and PPM assessments, according to the risk matrix shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Overall risk matrix

Vulnerability assessment

High M H H

Medium L M H

Low L L M

Low Medium High

Pollution prevention measures

This is described as the unmitigated risk rating of the bulk storage tank facility and indicates
the risk presented by the existing status of the Installation. The risk will fall within one of
three categories:

Low Where the overall risk is considered to be acceptable, either because of low
environmental vulnerability or the reduction in risk offered by adequate and
sufficient PPMs; it is unlikely that consideration of further risk mitigation measures
will be necessary.
Medium Where the overall risk is considered to be unacceptable, either because of the high
vulnerability or inadequate PPMs; mitigation measures to reduce the risk should be
evaluated for implementation.
High Where the overall risk is considered to be unacceptable, either because of the high
vulnerability or the absence and/or inadequacy of PPMs; mitigation measures to
reduce the risk must be evaluated for implementation.

It should be noted that, even if the PPM assessment produces a low risk result overall, with
individual low risk results for the primary, secondary and tertiary containment measures, it is
still possible that the overall risk result will be medium or high if the vulnerability assessment is
high. This is because a site may be high risk purely because of its location and the surrounding
and underlying environmental features. Even with the deployment of BAT, indicated by a low
risk result for the PPM, the vulnerability of the surrounding and underlying environment is
unchanged and the overall risk will remain medium or high. Clearly, if this type of assessment
were conducted prior to the construction of a new facility, such a result may indicate that
the facility would be better built elsewhere in order to avoid the risk altogether. However,

6
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

for an existing facility, this type of result presents a set of circumstances which is likely to
require further in-depth consideration and evaluation, in conjunction with input from the
Regulator.

2.5 STEP 5: MITIGATION MEASURES

The generation of a medium or high risk rating indicates that further PPMs may be necessary
to secure an acceptable level of risk to the environment. On completion of the assessment, the
evaluation of further PPM options within the tool allows the determination of the optimum
combination of additional measures for the most cost effective reduction of the risk rating.
Once all assessment questions have been answered on each PPM assessment page,
the tool identifies the options which are available on that page for reducing the risk rating in
the area of each specific assessment question. The tool offers the facility to manually insert
site-specific costings for selected options so that they may be ranked in order of effectiveness
(in reducing the risk) and cost of implementation. The most cost effective combination of
mitigation measures can then be selected and the assessment revised to reflect the reduction
in risk rating which will be secured.
The revised risk rating is displayed in the top right-hand corner of the page and in
the indicator boxes for the individual assessment criteria. On the overall assessment page,
the effect on overall risk rating resulting from the implementation of further risk mitigation
options is shown in the table headed 'Mitigated risk rating'. If the risk is still showing as high
or medium, a further range of mitigation options should be selected for consideration, ideally
until the displayed mitigated risk rating is low. With a risk rating of 'low', further, more costly,
site specific assessment may not be necessary, assuming the selected package of additional
mitigating measures are implemented.
The costs associated with the selected mitigation options are summarised in the table
headed 'Cost of mitigation'.
If the risk rating generated is high or medium, it may be necessary to consider more
detailed site specific investigation and risk assessment to develop a more robust assessment
of risk and consequence, based on a more structured probabilistic evaluation of the likelihood
of a particular event and the potential consequences arising from its occurrence. This may
include intrusive site investigations to establish underlying geology in more detail to facilitate
a more accurate assessment of the likelihood of sub-surface migration of spillages.

7
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

3 INFORMATION RESOURCES

Environmental risk information for UK sites can be obtained, on commercial terms, from a
number of sources which include:
Environment Agency (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk).
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (http://www.sepa.org.uk).
Northern Ireland Environment Agency (http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk).
Landmark Information Group (http://www.landmarkinfo.co.uk/corp/index.jsp).
British Geological Survey (BGS) Mapping (http://www.bgs.ac.uk).

8
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

4 REFERENCES

Integrated pollution prevention and control. Reference document on best available techniques
on emissions from storage, European Commission, January 2005.

The following documents were referenced during development of the screening tool:

API Soil and Groundwater Technical Task Force

Bulletin 24, Downward solute plume migration: Assessment, significance and implications
for characterisation and monitoring of 'diving plumes', April 2006.

BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd

SPR/NDT/015/98, Rational decision taking for bund lining of above ground storage tanks,
24 December 1998.

BSI

BS 476-10:2009, Fire tests on building materials and structures. Guide to the principles,
selection, role and application of fire testing and their outputs, December 2008.

Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board

Recommendations on land use planning and the control of societal risk around major hazard
sites, July 2008.

Explosion mechanism advisory group report, August 2007.

Buncefield Standards Task Group (BSTG) Final Report, Safety and environmental standards
for fuel storage sites, July 2007.

Recommendations on the emergency preparedness for response to and recovery from

incidents, July 2007.

Recommendations on the design and operation of fuel storage sites, March 2007.

Buncefield major incident investigation, initial report, July 2006.

Control of major accident hazards directive major accident: Short report, July 2006.

The Buncefield investigation progress report, February 2006.

The Buncefield investigation second progress report, April 2006.

The Buncefield investigation third progress report, May 2006.

9
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

Environment Agency

Underground under threat, groundwater protection: Policy and practice, GP3 Parts 14,
2008.

Environment Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, NI Environment &

Heritage Service

Pollution Prevention Guideline PPG17, Dairies and other milk handling operations,
environmental alliance.

HSE

HSG 176, Storage of flammable liquids in tanks, 1998.

10
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

ANNEX A
EXAMPLE RISK PHRASES FOR SELECTED MATERIALS

Substance Risk Phrase Description

R11 Highly flammable
R23 Toxic by inhalation
Alcohol
R24 Toxic in contact with skin
(Methanol)
R25 Toxic if swallowed
R39 Danger of very serious irreversible effects
R20 Harmful by inhalation
R21 Harmful in contact with skin
Chlorinated DNAPL R22 Harmful if swallowed
(Trichloroethylene) R40 Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect
Harmful to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term
R52/R53
adverse effects in the aquatic environment
R38 Irritating to the skin
Foodstuff (Orange
Juice) Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term
R51/53
adverse effects in the aquatic environment
Foodstuff Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term
R51/53
(Milk) adverse effects in the aquatic environment

11
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

ANNEX B
EXAMPLE RISK PHRASES FOR SELECTED PETROLEUM
INDUSTRY PRODUCTS

Substance Risk Phrase Description

R12 Extremely flammable
R45 May cause cancer
R46 May cause heritable genetic damage
R63 Possible risk of harm to the unborn child
Unleaded Petrol
(Gasoline) R65 Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed
R38 Irritating to skin
R67 Vapours may cause drowsiness and dizziness
Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term
R51/53
adverse effects in the aquatic environment
R40 Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect
R65 Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed
Diesel Repeated exposure may cause skin dryness or
R66
cracking
Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term
R51/53
adverse effects in the aquatic environment
Biodiesel R65 Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed
R10 Flammable
R65 Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed
Jet A-1 R38 Irritating to skin
Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term
R51/53
adverse effects in the aquatic environment

12
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

ANNEX C

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY SAFETY INTEGRITY LEVEL

ASSESSMENT TERMINOLOGY

Note: This Annex is in preparation. Full details will be added in due course.

13
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

ANNEX D
SCREENING ASSESSMENT FLOWCHART

What is the
stored material?

Is the material No
hazardous?

STOP
Yes No further
assessment
necessary

Are there any No

nearby sensitive
receptors?

Yes

Complete
Primary
Containment
Assessment

Identify risk
mitigation
Complete options and
Secondary ascribe costs
Containment
Assessment

Complete
Tertiary and
Firewater
Containment
Assessment

Risk Assessment

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

STOP No
Is risk
No further ALARP?
assessment
necessary
Yes

STOP
No further
assessment
necessary

14
 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES: A SCREENING TOOL
USER GUIDE

ANNEX E
GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ALARP: as low as reasonably practicable.

AST: above-ground storage tank.

BAT: best available technique.

BReF: BAT reference note.

DNAPL: dense non-aqueous phase liquid.

EI: the Energy Institute.

Installation: an IPPC installation as defined under the environmental permitting (England

and Wales) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007 no. 3538).

IPPC: integrated pollution prevention control.

PPM: pollution prevention measures.

SEPA: Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.

SIL: safety integrity level.

15
Energy Institute This publication has been produced as a result of
61 New Cavendish Street work carried out within the Technical Team of the
London W1G 7AR, UK Energy Institute (EI), funded by the EIs Technical
Partners. The EIs Technical Work Programme
t: +44 (0) 20 7467 7100 provides industry with cost effective, value adding
f: +44 (0) 20 7255 1472 knowledge on key current and future issues
e: pubs@energyinst.org affecting those operating in the energy sector,
www.energyinst.org both in the UK and beyond.

ISBN 978 0 85293 393 0

Registered Charity Number 1097899