cdoif-leak-detection-guide.pdf

CDOIF
Chemical and Downstream Oil Industries Forum
Guideline
Leak Detection
Guideline – Leak Detection v0.6 Page 1 of 25

CDOIF
Chemical and Downstream Oil
Industries Forum
CDOIF is a collaborative venture formed to agree strategic areas for
joint industry / trade union / regulator action aimed at delivering
health, safety and environmental improvements with cross-sector
benefits.
Foreword
In promoting and leading on key sector process safety initiatives, CDOIF has developed through its
members this guideline on available leak detection techniques for Above-ground Storage Tanks
(AST).
The intent of this document is to provide a reference for those organisations wishing to consider the
use of leak detection systems to provide mitigation against the loss of product from an AST.
It is not the intention of this document to replace any existing corporate policies or processes. The
intent is to provide a reference to users to help in the selection of appropriate leak detection
techniques.
There are no limitations on further distribution of this guideline to other organisations outside of
CDOIF membership, provided that:
1. It is understood that this report represents CDOIF’s view of common guidelines as applied
to leak detection.
2. CDOIF accepts no responsibility in terms of the use or misuse of this document.
3. The report is distributed in a read only format, such that the name and content is not
changed and that it is consistently referred to as "CDOIF Guideline – Leak Detection".
4. It is understood that no warranty is given in relation to the accuracy or completeness of
information contained in the report except that it is believed to be substantially correct at the
time of publication.
It should be understood that this document does not explore all possible options for leak detection,
nor does it consider individual site requirements – Following the guidance is not compulsory and
duty holders are free to take other action.

CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................4
2. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE..............................................................................................5
3. TECHNIQUES FOR LEAK DETECTION................................................................................6
3.1 Gas detection within the tank bund.............................................................................9
3.2 Tank base perimeter/bund floor point detectors........................................................10
3.3 Sump/interceptor point or interface detectors ...........................................................11
3.4 Hydrocarbon detection tapes installed in the bund floor or underneath the tank .......12
3.5 Under tank membrane with tell-tail leak detection.....................................................13
3.6 Interspace loss of vacuum detection.........................................................................14
3.7 Tank level gauging with product loss alarm ..............................................................15
3.8 Point or interface detection at floating roof drain valve outlet....................................16
3.9 Point or interface detection at bund drain valve outlet...............................................17
3.10 Point or interface detection at tank water draw valve outlet ......................................18
4. RISK REDUCTION CONSIDERATION................................................................................19
4.1 Defining the mitigation layer .....................................................................................20
4.2 Claiming risk reduction .............................................................................................21
Abbreviations...................................................................................................................................22
Other relevant publications ..............................................................................................................23
Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................................24
Revision History...............................................................................................................................25

CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hazardous substances which are stored in above-ground storage tanks could have the
potential to pollute the environment or harm people if the primary containment measure
in which they are stored (i.e. the tank) fails.
Leak detection is one method by which hydrocarbons can be detected should primary
containment fail. Early indication of the failure may ensure that mitigation measures to
prevent escalation of the scenario can be deployed quickly.
The final report of the Process Safety Leadership Groups (PSLG) safety and
environmental standards for fuel storage sites was published in December 2009. Part 2
of that report provides limited guidance on the use of gas and liquid detection systems to
detect overflows from a bulk storage tanks. A research report commissioned by the
Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL), entitled ‘A review of leak detection for fuel storage
sites, ECM/2008/08’ provided further guidance.
As part of its role to deliver improvements in health, safety and the environment, the
CDOIF Process Safety Work-stream agreed to examine the types of leak detection that
had been successfully implemented in the UK. A working group was commissioned to
develop this guideline to assist duty holders in the selection of appropriate techniques
and what impact these systems may have in terms of risk reduction.
There are different leak detection methodologies available, which each have their own
strengths and weaknesses. Methodologies considered in terms of their benefits,
limitations and indicative costs are described in section 3, Techniques for Leak
Detection.
Leak detection systems may reduce the risk to people or the environment. They could
be considered as a further layer of protection against specific scenarios or be considered
a more cost effective risk reduction technique as part of an ALARP (As Low As
Reasonably Practicable) demonstration. The possibility of spurious trips will discourage
their use in automatic systems, whether in the Basic Process Control System (BPCS) or
Safety Instrumented System (SIS). As per other guidance, any claims for risk reduction
as an additional mitigation barrier will require justification in terms of clearly defined
operating procedures and emergency responses.

CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
2. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
Leak detection in the context of this guidance relates to the detection of hydrocarbons
following the failure of primary containment. Primary containment inside a bund consists
of the tank shell and associated pipe work. Primary containment may fail in any of the
following ways:
• The tank is over-filled, resulting in loss of product from the top of the tank, or
through roof vents
• Failure of the tank floor
• Failure of the tank wall joints
• Catastrophic tank failure
• Failure of pipe-work associated with the tank
• Failure of pipe-work running through the bund
The risk of these failures occurring can be reduced significantly through measures such
as good inspection, maintenance and repair processes, and where appropriate the
installation of preventative systems such as overfill protection. Leak detection systems
can complement these other measures to reduce the risk further, or they may also
provide an alternative means of risk reduction when other systems or processes are
disproportionate in terms of the risk reduction achieved versus the cost.
This guidance should not be interpreted as a requirement to install such systems, but
instead provide a useful reference to those duty holders who may be considering the
installation of leak detection for the reasons stated. Other techniques are available, and
cost will be variable depending on the technology adopted and existing site
infrastructure. Consideration should also be given to the sensitivities of any installed
system to spurious trips during routine operations (such as flushing), and procedures
should be updated accordingly.
The following sections provide an overview of typical leak detection systems adopted by
the downstream oil industry in the UK – this list is not exhaustive and other techniques
may also be available.

CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
3. TECHNIQUES FOR LEAK DETECTION
Leak detection may be considered as one mechanism for the early detection of failure of
primary containment. Typical examples of Hydrocarbon detection techniques include:
• Gas detection (point sensors)
• Point detectors placed around the circumference of the tank or in the bund floor
• Interface or level detectors placed in an interceptor or sump
• Hydrocarbon detection ‘tapes’ installed in the bund floor, or underneath the base
of the tank
• Under tank membrane with tell-tail leak detection
• Interspace loss of vacuum detection
• Tank level gauging with product loss alarm (wet-stock reconciliation)
• Point or interface detectors located at the outlet to a floating roof drain valve
• Point or interface detectors located at the outlet to a bund drain valve
• Point or interface detectors located at the outlet to a tank water draw valve

CDOIF
Chemical and Downstream Oil benefits.
Industries Forum
Figure 1 – Examples of Hydrocarbon detection points

CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
When reviewing the applicability of leak detection techniques, it is important to consider
the circumstances under which it will be used, and the scenario(s) it is intended to
detect, for example:
• Installing liquid or gas detection is unlikely to have an effect on reducing the risk
to people or the environment following catastrophic tank failure, or loss of very
large volumes of product after the failure of wall joint as the volumes lost would
be significant over a very short space of time. However smaller leaks may be a
pre-curser to more significant failures, and therefore leak detection may prove
beneficial.
• Leak detection is likely to be beneficial in mitigating the risk arising from tank
over-fill, or from other significant tank leaks.
• Gas detection may be effective in detection of vapour formation following over
topping thus limiting the size of a Flammable Vapour Cloud (FVC), but it is
unlikely to be effective in detecting a leak from the base of the tank.
• The positioning of gas detectors can be impacted by prevailing weather
conditions. Gas detectors will be much less sensitive to leaks down-wind of the
detector.
Reference should be made to section 4, Risk Reduction Consideration, for further
information on the benefits that could be claimed, and the restrictions that should be
applied when considering the chosen leak detection system in a risk assessment.
Installations appropriate to new build tanks may not be appropriate for tanks which are
refurbished.
The following sub-sections provide an analysis of typical leak detection techniques, their
benefits and limitations and indicative cost.

3.1
CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Gas detection within the tank bund
Usage Potential benefits Considerations
Indicative
Cost
Gas detectors positioned within
the bund can be used to detect
vapour cloud formation caused
either from tank over-fill or failure
of the tank shell (where these
failures are located in such a
place as to cause cascade of
product likely to form a vapour
cloud)
Early detection of loss of
containment could reduce the
size, or prevent the formation of a
large flammable vapour cloud
which may lead to a Vapour
Cloud Explosion (VCE)
Gas detection is a well
proven technology,
which is generally robust
and cost effective where
a suitable integrity,
reliability or preventative
maintenance strategy is
applied.
Effective positioning of
detectors is important as
the spread of a vapour
cloud will be directly
affected by weather
conditions.
Suitable technology
should be selected
depending upon the
product and conditions
to be detected
technology includes
point and open path.
Further information can
be found here:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/p
ubns/gasdetector.pdf
Gas detection would
form part of a mitigatory
Medium
Early detection of loss of
containment could reduce the risk
of a pool fire by detecting vapour
within the bund before ignition.
protection layer – alarm
activation would be
required to initiate
further action and/or
emergency response.
This further activity
would be required to be
clearly defined and
subject to periodic
testing.

3.2
CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Tank base perimeter/bund floor point detectors
Indicative
Cost
Liquid point detectors positioned
around the base of the tank, or in
the bund floor (typically in the
lowest gradients of the bund floor)
can be used to detect loss of
containment into the bund, either
from tank over-fill or failure of the
tank shell. In some instances this
may also detect loss of
containment from the tank floor,
though this will be dependent on
the topology and geology of the
bund underneath the tank
Early detection of hydrocarbons in
the bund could reduce the size, or
prevent the formation of a large
flammable vapour cloud which
may lead to a VCE
the bund may be used to reduce
the risk of pool fires.
the bund may also provide an
early indication of loss of
containment, reducing the risk of
a Major Accident to the
Environment (MATTE)
Liquid point detectors
can provide an early
indication of
hydrocarbons within the
bund, reducing the
escalation of several
scenarios which if
undetected could lead to
a VCE or a MATTE.
Liquid point detection
may be subject to
spurious trips due to
bund materials which
may already be
contaminated, or
through rain water
collecting in the bund.
Detection is only
effective at the point of
measurement, and
therefore the positioning
and number of detectors
require careful
consideration
Care should be taken
when claiming credit for
the reduction in size of a
flammable vapour cloud,
as liquid would only be
detected in the bund if
the tank was already
overflowing – giving time
for the vapour cloud to
form.
within the bund would
activation would be
emergency response.
clearly defined and
subject to periodic
testing.
Medium

3.3
CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Sump/interceptor point or interface detectors
Indicative
Cost
Liquid Point Detectors positioned
in the bund sump or interceptor
can come in two forms:
1. Simple level switch (fitted
with a displacer for
greater accuracy), or
2. Interface level detectors
These technologies can be used
to detect loss of containment into
the bund either from tank over-fill
or failure of the tank shell. In
some instances this may also
detect loss of containment from
the tank floor, though this will be
dependent on the topology and
geology of the bund underneath
the tank
the bund sump or interceptor may
be used to reduce the risk of pool
fires.
the bund sump or interceptor may
also provide an indication of loss
of containment, reducing the risk
of a MATTE
Bund sump or
interceptor
liquid/interface detectors
indication of
bund, reducing the
scenarios which if
a MATTE.
Interface level detectors
in particular have been
shown to be very
reliable and easy to
maintain.
Simple level switches in
particular can be subject
to spurious trips due to
rain water collecting in
the bund.
Liquid Point Detection is
only effective at the
point of measurement,
and therefore detection
will only occur where
product collects in the
bund sump/interceptor
Bund sump or
interceptor
liquid/interface detection
activation would be
emergency response.
clearly defined and
subject to period testing.
Hydrocarbon detection
may be linked with
executive action (for
example closing an
automated valve) if
failure is likely to result
in hydrocarbon release
into the bund
Low

3.4
CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Hydrocarbon detection tapes installed in the bund floor or underneath the
tank
Indicative
Cost
Hydrocarbon tape/cable detectors
Tape/cable detectors
are an effective method
for detecting leaks from
the tank floor, which
otherwise may be
undetected for some
Tape/cable detectors
can be sacrificial, and
would require
replacement following
detection.
There is a risk of
premature failure of the
system if installation is
not carefully planned
and executed.
positioned underneath the tank
floor can be used to detect loss of
containment from the tank floor.
Early detection of hydrocarbons
underneath the tank may provide
an indication of loss of
time.
Arranged in a lattice
format, this method of
detection may also
provide some accuracy
as to the location of the
Care should be taken in
assessing the
contamination that may
already exist underneath
the tank before
installation
High
a MATTE
leak within the tank
floor.
Tape or cable detectors
can either be installed
underneath the tank
base (typically using a
boring technique) or
between two floors of a
double bottomed tank.
Tape/cable detection
underneath the tank
would form part of a
mitigatory protection
layer – alarm activation
would be required to
initiate further action
and/or emergency
response. This further
activity would be
required to be clearly
defined and subject to
period testing.

3.5
CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Under tank membrane with tell-tail leak detection
Indicative
Cost
Liquid point detectors positioned
at the outlet of under tank
floor/over membrane leak
detection pipes can be used to
detect loss of containment into the
bund from tank floor failure.
a MATTE
Liquid point detectors
indication of
bund, reducing the
scenarios which if
a MATTE.
may be subject to
spurious trips due to
bund materials which
may already be
contaminated, or
through rain water
collecting in the bund.
Detection is only
effective at the point of
measurement, and
therefore the positioning
and number of detectors
require careful
consideration
Under tank membranes
are primarily concerned
with detecting tank floor
leaks. Other leaks
leading to FVC are
unlikely to be detected.
protection layer –
routine operator
monitoring or alarm
activation would be
emergency response,
however the system
indicates failure of only
one of the containment
systems, and therefore
immediate response
may not be required.
Any further activity
clearly defined and
subject to periodic
testing
Low/
Medium

3.6
CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Interspace loss of vacuum detection
Indicative
Cost
Loss of vacuum on vacuum
annulus systems installed on tank
floors can be used to detect loss
of containment from the tank floor.
a MATTE
Loss of vacuum
techniques are an
effective method for
detecting leaks from the
tank floor, which
otherwise may be
undetected for some
time.
Loss of vacuum
detection systems are
installed in the space
between an internal
epoxy/steel tank floor
and the external tank
floor.
Loss of vacuum
detection systems would
protection layer –
routine operator
monitoring or alarm
activation would be
emergency response,
however the system
indicates failure of only
one of the containment
systems, and therefore
immediate response
may not be required.
Any further activity
clearly defined and
subject to periodic
testing
Medium/
High

3.7
CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Tank level gauging with product loss alarm
Indicative
Cost
Liquid level monitoring (wet-stock
reconciliation) of the product
within the tank can be used to
detect a loss of containment over
a period of time (for example,
where product is leaking from the
tank).
Monitoring of the tank level for
loss of containment is only
relevant during the period when
the product in the tank is
stationary (for example when no
transfers into or out of the tank
are in progress, such as when a
terminal is closed overnight).
Tank gauging systems can detect
comparatively small leaks of
product loss
Liquid level monitoring is
a well proven
technology with proven
reliability and
repeatability for
Monitoring is normally
via the tank gauging
system
The system should be
configured with a
change in level
(discrepancy) alarm that
is relayed to relevant
Low
the bund could reduce the size, or
prevent the formation of a large
flammable vapour cloud which
may lead to a VCE
accuracy
personnel who can take
appropriate action/.
This could either be the
central control room or
security office.
Environment (MATTE)

3.8
CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Point or interface detection at floating roof drain valve outlet
Indicative
Cost
Leak detection installed on the
outflow from a floating roof drain
valve can provide indication of a
failure of the drain line (hose or
flexible joint) or a sunken floating
roof.
Cost effective when
installed in drain lines
from the outlet of the
drain valves
Functionality is only
relevant where the
policy on the site is to
leave the roof drain
normally open, in this
instance leak detection
could be beneficial. The
detection will not
function if the drain line
is closed.
Close care and attention
is needed during the
set-up and
commissioning of such
systems to prevent
spurious alarms and
avoid loss of confidence.
Detection in the drain
line would form part of a
Low
Environment (MATTE)
and/or emergency
activity would be
period testing.
may be linked with
example closing an
automated valve) if
into the bund.

3.9
CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Point or interface detection at bund drain valve outlet
Indicative
Cost
outflow from the bund drain valve
can provide indication of over-fill
or loss of containment into the
bund.
Environment (MATTE)
Cost effective when
drain valves
Functionality is only
relevant where the
policy on the site is to
leave the bund drain
valve normally open, in
this instance leak
detection could be
beneficial. The
detection will not
function if the drain line
is closed.
set-up and
systems to prevent
spurious alarms and
Detection in the drain
line would form part of a
and/or emergency
activity would be
period testing.
Low

CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
3.10 Point or interface detection at tank water draw valve outlet
Indicative
Cost
outflow from a water drain valve
can provide indication of loss of
containment into the bund.
Cost effective when
Tank water draw is
normally an attended
operation, but can take
place over long periods
of time. In these
instances, hydrocarbon
detection may be of
benefit.
set-up and
systems to prevent
spurious alarms and
Detection in the water
drain line would form
part of a mitigatory Low
Environment (MATTE)
drain valves protection layer – alarm
activation would be
emergency response.
clearly defined and
subject to period testing.
may be linked with
example closing an
automated valve) if
into the bund

CDOIF health, safety and environmental improvements with cross-sector
Chemical and Downstream Oil benefits.
Industries Forum
4. RISK REDUCTION CONSIDERATION
Whether or not a leak detection system is installed will be dependent on the benefits that
it gives versus the costs of installation and maintenance - this decision should be made
by the duty holder when completing a risk assessment for the credible scenarios which
could result in loss of containment from an AST. Further guidance relating to risk
assessment can be found here:
• For the protection of people, refer to the numerous publications by the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE) for COMAH, http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/
• For the protection of the environment, one methodology for environmental risk
assessment is provided in the CDOIF publication ‘Environmental Risk
Tolerability for COMAH Establishments’
The installation of such systems may be appropriate to reduce the risk to people or the
environment (or both). They could be considered as a further layer of protection against
specific scenarios (for example reducing the risk of the formation of a flammable vapour
cloud, or the risk of pollution to an environmental receptor), or be considered a more cost
effective risk reduction technique as part of an ALARP (As Low As Reasonably
Practicable) demonstration. However as any such system will only indicate the presence
of hydrocarbons after they have escaped from the tank, they should only be considered
as a mitigation layer.
Whilst leak detection mechanisms could be configured with an automatic action (for
example closure of an inlet valve, drain valve or stopping a transfer pump), caution
should be taken when considering these systems to be safety related as further
mitigatory actions would be required even if the automatic action1
completed
successfully, i.e.:
Figure 1 – Leak Detection Actions
These further mitigatory actions (for example emergency response) would themselves be
required to have written procedures and be tested in order to claim credit as part of the
risk assessment process.
1
There is a probability of spurious alarms with some types of leak detection technology
used in this application (detection of hydrocarbons in a bunded area) therefore due
consideration should be given to the robustness of installation before integration with an
automated action.

4.1
CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Defining the mitigation layer
Before determining the level of risk reduction that can potentially be claimed following the
installation of leak detection, it is first important to understand what potential
consequences it is intended to mitigate against, and whether it is in support of other
systems such as a Basic Process Control System (BPCS) or Safety Instrumented
System (SIS).
A risk assessment should determine if further measures are required to reduce the risk to
Tolerable if ALARP (TifALARP), and
• Where leak detection is to be considered in support of other systems such as an
SIS or BPCS to reduce overall risk (for example its purpose is to mitigate against
the formation of a large FVC or the risk to an environmental receptor from over
filling a tank), independence from the BPCS would need to be demonstrated as
with other protection/mitigation layers such as independent alarms. Further
information on independence can be found in the following publications:
o Process Safety Leadership Group (PSLG) final report, Appendix 4
o CDOIF guideline ‘Process Safety Leadership Group – Other Products in
Scope’
• Where the leak detection system is to be considered to reduce the potential for a
MATTE but not in conjunction with other automated systems such as an SIS or
BPCS (for example its purpose is to mitigate the risk against a leak from the base
of a tank), independence would not need to be demonstrated from the BPCS (or
other systems) as the leak detection system is not providing a supporting
mitigation layer to others provided by the BPCS. Further information on
environmental risk assessments and MATTE definitions can be found in the
following publication:
o CDOIF guideline ‘Environmental Risk Tolerability for COMAH
Establishments’
When determining the appropriateness of leak detection as a mitigation layer, clear
descriptions should be given of the definition of the alarm, where and how it is sounded,
who will react to it and how they should react, and how much time is available to react.
This review should include consideration of:
• Sounding the alarm in a different location to the Central Control Room, for
example security building, to increase independence where necessary from the
existing automation systems such as the BPCS and SIS.
• Whether or not there is a need for investigation by local operators should the leak
detection system alarm, and how long this would take.
• Standard and Emergency operating procedures which define what needs to be
done when the alarm is sounded, for example:
o Transfer of the substance to another location

4.2
CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
o Adding water to the tank (where this is a viable option for the type of
substance)
o Shutdown of the process, sub-process or transfer
Note that leak detection introduced as a mitigation layer may reduce the consequence of
loss of primary containment, but would not reduce the frequency.
Claiming risk reduction
The installation of appropriate leak detection, and supporting operational and emergency
procedures can contribute to overall risk reduction in any of the following ways:
• Providing a layer of protection (or additional layer of protection) reducing the
overall risk to people and the environment to TifALARP
• Providing an additional layer of protection in support of existing systems which
may in turn reduce the Safety Integrity Level (SIL) required by a SIS (Note
however installation of leak detection does not negate the need for an
independent SIS for overfill protection on finished gasoline tanks within the
scope of the PSLG)
• Providing the potential for an alternative (subject to ALARP and Cost Benefit
Analysis (CBA)) and more cost effective mechanism for reducing the risk of a
MATTE as part of an ALARP demonstration
Following existing guidance relating to alarm systems as layers of protection, the claimed
risk reduction for leak detection systems can be 0.1 (subject to the requirements laid out
in this guideline, and other applicable publications, and appropriate justification). A claim
of better than 0.1 would not be credible where an operator response to an
alarm/monitoring activity is required, and may be worse depending on the reliability
placed on the chosen detection method.
When completing a risk assessment, appropriate conservatism should be applied when
determining relevant conditional modifiers and the probability of failure on demand of
other independent layers of protection.

CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description
ALARP As Low As is Reasonably Practicable
AST Above-ground Storage Tank
BPCS Basic Process Control System
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CDOIF Chemical and Downstream Oil Industry Forum
COMAH Control of Major Accident Hazards
EEMUA Engineering Equipment and Materials Users Association
FVC Flammable Vapour Cloud
HSE Health and Safety Executive
HSL Health and Safety Laboratory
MATTE Major Accident to the Environment
PSLG Process Safety Leadership Group
SIL Safety Integrity Level
SIS Safety Instrumented System
TifALARP Tolerable if As Low As is Reasonably Practicable
UK United Kingdom
UKPIA United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association
VCE Vapour Cloud Explosion

CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Other relevant publications
Further information relating leak detection techniques can be found in the following publications
1) Process Safety Leadership Group, final report – Safety and Environmental Standards for
Fuel Storage Sites
2) Health and Safety Laboratory – A review of leak detection for fuel storage sites,
ECM/2008/08
3) EEMUA 159 – User’s guide to the inspection, maintenance and repair of above ground
vertical cylindrical steel storage tanks, Third Edition
4) EEMUA 183 – Prevention of tank bottom leakage – a guide for the design and repair of
foundations and bottoms of vertical, cylindrical, steel storage tanks, Second Edition
5) EEMUA 191 - Alarm Systems - A Guide to Design, Management and Procurement
6) EEMUA 213 – Emission reduction from oil storage tanks and loading operations, First
Edition
7) Storage BREF (Best Available Techniques Reference Document), 2006
8) Energy Institute Model Code of Safe Practice Part 2
9) Energy Institute Environmental Guidelines for Petroleum Distribution Installations

CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Acknowledgements
This document was created as part of the Chemical and Downstream Oil Industry Forum Process
Safety work stream.
CDOIF wish to record their appreciation to the working group members who were responsible for
creating this guideline:
Name Organisation
Peter Davidson (Chair) UKPIA
Dave Ransome P&I Design Ltd.
Barrie Salmon Tank Storage Association
Raman Sridhar BP
Mike Boothman Phillips 66
Ian Goldsworthy Valero
Craig Pugh Exxon
John Lilley EEMUA
Carol Pickard Total
Bruce Hopwood Shell
Brian Armitage Petroineos
Andy McCormick Essar Oil (UK)
David Howard Environment Agency
Mike Nicholas Environment Agency

CDOIF
Industries Forum
benefits.
Revision History
Rev.Section Description Date Changed By
0 All First Issue 20-Feb-2013 Peter Davidson
0.1 All Project sponsor comments incorporated 21-Feb-2013 Peter Davidson
0.2 All Updated with working group comments 28-Feb-2013 Peter Davidson
0.3 All Updated with further working group comments 16-May-2013 Peter Davidson
0.4 All Updated with final comments from working group 11-June-2013 Peter Davidson
0.5 All Updated with final comments from CA 1-July-2013 Peter Davidson
0.6 All Update with CDOIF Stakeholder Comments 29-Aug-2103 Peter Davidson

cdoif-leak-detection-guide.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to cdoif-leak-detection-guide.pdf (18)

Recently uploaded (20)

cdoif-leak-detection-guide.pdf