Legal Proceedings

Limiting exposure In our fight to prevent ignition there is one other very obvious thing we can do and that is to iimit exposure. This we can achieve by keeping all vessels securely closed and whenever possible requiring transfer of liquid only under seal. Perhaps you will permit me very briefly to summarize the three basic steps which are taken to prevent ignition as follows:-

(a) Limit exposure (b) Ventilate (c) Exclude ignition sources There is, of course, a certain amount of interplay in these steps. For example if you have no exposure and excellent ventilation then you can taken it more easil on exclusion of ignition sources. If you y have a lot of exposure then you have got to be very strict in both excluding ignition sources as well as in ensuring very good ventilation.

Limiting the effect of fire We can now turn to measures to limit the extent of a fire and to miniminse the risk to persons. Naturally our first concern will be with persons and the way in which we can help them best is to ensure that they always have easy and safe means of escape from a storage area and from any buildings to which the storage area presents an e xposure threat . Too often I have seen small enclosures for tank wagons with no effective means of escape for the tank wagon driver and I have always wondered what he would do if there was trouble.

To l i mit the spread of fire we must establish fire breaks . Distance itself, .of course, provides an effective fire break if there is no combustible material in the intervening space . Where an adequate safety dis t ance cannot be provided between the risk and a building, fire breaks can be established by requiring construction to a specified standard of fire-resistance for the walls or partit ions of the building exposed to the risk . Such walls and partitions should be imperforate as far as possible but if openings are provided they must be suitably protected. Normally the only openings one encounters are open ings and Window openings. Srriafi'per sorinel doorway openings can be fitted with fire-resisting and selfclosing doors ; lar ge vehic le access doorway can be fitted with fire-resisting shutters each fuse held at a open on tempera ly be a t ure of l a in bo k a ut rr 17 anged o 0 F an to d windows can be glazed with fire-resisting glass in a fire-resisting frame fixed shut or otherwise protected by fire-resisting baffles of they need to be open for ventilation purposes. It is important that we should ensure in a storage area that the amount of potential fuel to feed a fire is kept to a minimum. This means avoiding any clutter of combustibles in the area and also taking care to see that buildings in the area such as kiosks, which are not required to be fire-resisting are of incombustible construction. We should remember that fire-resisting walls or partitions should not be covered with highly combustible lining material which will enable fire to flash rapidly across its surface. If we permit this a small fire at one end of the storage area may spread also instantly to involve the whole area and this is most undesirable. The point is most important,

I feel, in respect of canopies and to ceilings. It may not always be poss1ble to insist on full incombustibility and you may be prepared to waive this to the extent of permitting materials which have a surface spread of flame, i.e., Class 2 1n

British Standard No. 476 Part 7. These materials normally burn slowly, but they do , of course, burn . I should stress that a material which is combustible or has a low surface spread of flame is not necessarily fire-resisting . Compressed asbestic cement sheeting is incombustible for e xample but apply a flame to it and it shatters and so cannot· pr event the spread of fire. Glass does exactly the same. Conversely some combus tible materials such as wood in sufficient thickness , do have a standard of fi r e-r esistance. I f you are interested in this aspect, I can do no better than recommend the var ious parts of British Standard No . 476 for you to study.

There is a misconception which arises on the part of this British Standard which deals with f i re- resistance and I would like to attempt to rectify it. Unfortunately fire-resistance i n the standard is expressed i n ter ms of time. However this time is not the time that a partition , f or example , will stand up in pr actice; it i s the time that is resists the test . All fire- resisti ng str uc tur es shoul d be designed to r esist complete burn out . The intensity of f ire in a str uc tur e i s determined by its fire l oad density. This notion of fi r e loan density i s related direc t l y t o t he tes t , for Thus one c an say that · i f the fi r e load dens i ty in a str ucture does ex ceed a given amoun t and t he fire- r esi s tance is a given

time then that structure will resist complete burn out. If for any reason the fire load density is increased this no longer remains true. I would in passing like to point out that this makes a nonsense of . saying that because on an escape route you have half-hour partitions this will give half-an-hour for people to get out and for the fire brigade to arrive. It is unlikely to be true in every case and reveals a complete misunderstanding of the fire grading of buildings. Fire

We can summarize the steps that need to be taken to limit the effects of fire under the three heads of:

(a) secure means of escape (b) exclude unnecessary combustibles (c) confine the fire I have touched on all these aspects except to say that confining the fire would also include fire-fighting. Obviously one very good way of confining a fire is to extinguish it. This brings us to the question of fire extinguishers. The subject is quite well covered in the various Home Office Model Codes and there are only a few pOints that I would make.

Firstly to be effective fire extinguishers must be readily available; they are of no use locked away in the manager's office. Secondly do not put all your eggs in one basket; arrange extinguishers at fire points ensuring always that the fire points are sufficiently remote from each other . In arranging the fire points there are two things to remember.

Do not mix foam and dry powder extinguishers i n a single l ocation because some powders are incompatible with foam . Moreover r mbeeme r that mos t foam extinguishers must be kept warm at least to the extent that they are never exposed for any length of time to temperatures below OOF Below 4 . . . sher ext1ngu1 this temper ature the I ff' permanetly oses e 1c ., . 1ency at t leas unt1'l s uch t1me as 1t has been re-charged. PREVENTION OF OUTFLOW The final objective which we have to conS ' l d er 's 1 the ques tion of prevention . of 1 outf ow. I n the cas . e of can stores .. th1 s can be hac · ved 1e very S1mply by prov1d1ng a retaining well to the store. . '11 be necessary for the reta1n1ng 1 t W1 well to be capable of .. th e t t 0 1 a t con ten S f 0 the store only 1n those cases where the whole conte nts of the store is contained in a single vessel or where the conta ining vessels are liable to shatter and deposit their contents immediately when or soon after a fire occurs. In other cases of lesser standard in reasonable and for most storages a six inch high retaining well should suffice. This in fact is the recommendation of the Home Office Code .

It is equally important that we should prevent outflow from filling stations and this is usually done by arranging the falls of the forecourtso that there is no drainage out to the public way or into buildings from the vehicle charging area and storage areas. In the charging and storage areas trapped gullies should be provided and these should be connected to the sewers only via a petroleum interceptor. Arrangements should me made for the periodic cleaning of the petroleum interceptor. At times because of the slope of the land it may not be possible to dish the forecourts as I have just indicated and in such cases it may be necessary to provide secret channels across the accesways of the forecourt to prevent outflow to the road. The grilles of secret channels are, however, apt to get blocked and I would suggest that you always adopt a simple dodge to ensure that they are kept clean. This consists of having them installed . wall w1th about 2-3 a fall of feet inside the bound ary 2ft or so back from the boundary . . of the filling In this station way has the the proprieto choice Of r either keeping the channels clean or discouraging custom by reason of the puddles which form at this entrance in wet weather. This I have found to be much more effective than endeavourin to persuade him of the danger of out;l ow. There is just one more aspect of outflow with which I will deal and that is the question of . outflow into th e sewers . If petroleum sp1rit or mixture gets into the sewer s there is not only danger to men working in the pa t· r lcular s b ewers ut also danger to the general public at lar ge. As you may know there h b . . ave een some magn1flcent sewer explo ' . S10ns 1n the States because of insuffl' . t Clen safeguards being adopted to prevent such outflow. May I , th ere fore , suggest as a golden rule that you r . equlre h t e of any area likely to sPllled petroleum spirit or to be passed through petroleum lntercepting chambers. On the question 01' the type of gullies to be used, if you look at the matter, you will appreciate that the petrol will be retained primarily in first chamber of the petroleum lnterceptor, which acts as a petrol/ water separator . This petrol will , of

course, vaporise. It is true that the chamber will be vented but unless you taken appropriate steps it is apparent that vapour will usually have an easier path to atmosphere along the drain runs. If you allow this ventilation path by permitting trapless gullies you taken the chance of having your drain run blown up when someone carelessly discards a lighted match into the gulley. Therefore the rule should be that all gullies connected to a petroleum interceptor must be of trapped type. You will face much the same sort of difficulty with back inlet gullies when the back inlet discharges just over the surface of liquid in the trapped tion of the gully. I f petrol gets lnto the gully vapour will spread up the back inlet. Thus in general back inlet gullies of this type should be avoided. There is a lot more that could be said in regard to our three main objectives. At the Northern School 1 in fact went to from this point to discuss particular types of installations. There is not time for that today nor is it appropriate . However I have found that if one is not' carefHl practice tends to develop on the lines of precedent and a desire to be consistent rather than to meet necessity. For this reason I think it is useful to stop every now and again and examine one's cod'es of practice with a view to deciding to what extent they meet the three basic objectives I have outlined today . I would suggest that any code which fully satisfies all these objectives is prima facie a reasonable standard.

BEDFORDSHIRE

Conveyance

At Luton Magistrate's Court on 3rd February, 1977, Hans Georg Tameggar, licensee of a petrol filling station, pleaded guilty to two charges, and David Michael Brent a tanker wagon driver pleaded guilty to two other charges. The charges arose following a routine delivery inspection by Petroleum Officers , during which it was noted that the delivery vehicle was unattended , and no certificate had been made out under regulation 16 of the conveyance regulations . The licensee was fined £125 with £15 costs, and the driver was also fined £125 with £15 costs .

ESSEX Licence Conditions & Marking of Container

On 18th January 1977 at Witham Cour t Derek Doe , a Director of A. S . Cable Ltd . , St ation Garage, Hatfield Peverel, was pr osecuted on the f ollowi ng counts : 1. for contravening conditions o f the General Conditions attached t o t he petroleum licence in t hat he fai l e d t o t ake al l due precautions t o pr,event a person under the age of 15 year s from havi ng access t o petroleum-spi r i t. Contrary to Section 2 of the Petroleum (Consolidation ) Act 1928 and to Section 33(3) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974

, 0 t in 2. that he sold petroleum-splr1 at attached a container to which there was n S 0 it" "P tro1eum- p1r a label showing the wordS e d and "Highly Inflammable" an d the name an address of the vendor.

f the Petrol Contrary to Section 5 0 t Section eum (Consolidation) 33(3) of the He alth Act and 1928 andt Safety a Etc. Act 1974 ..

0lty and waS f i ned £ 25 Mr. Doe·pleaded gU1 0 th on each charge, W1 £10 cos ts . when an 11 year old These chargeS arose 0 th a can to girl was s ent to the garage asked for buy par raffin but inadvertendt a mi nor petrol . The o mlstake esulte r 1 caused no explosi on which , f ortunatelY, s er ious i njury .

Unlicenced

t sout hminster Co o Ll urt 0 mlt On So ed 4 v o t h Mar c ereign f Park h 1977 a d s tries . al In u ChemlC 0 Furness d BarroW l n ' Roa , for failing to Cu li mbr cen i s a , were pr e a s t ore o osec f· r 0 uted the keep0 S r equlr ing of e d by petroleum mlxtures a (Consolidation) Se ction 1 of the petroleum he Health and Act 1928 and Section 33 of t Safety at Work Etc . Act 1974 .

The above company were prosecuted at Rochford Magistrates' Court on 16th February 1977 on two charges resulting from a spillage at their bulk storage terminal. The first charge was for contravening a condition attached to the licence granted to them by the Essex County Council in that they failed to take due precautions to prevent an escape of petroleum-spirit and secondly that they contravened another condition of the licence by failing to immediately notify the Chief Fire Officer of a spillage. The facts briefly were that on 3rd January a tanker was discharging oil into the bulk storage when, due to a valve being left open and a subsidiary pipe not being blanked off, a spillage of approximately 200 tons occurred. This flooded a pump house and spilled over into drainage ditches surrounding 12 large storage tanks.

The spillage was discovered at approximately 3.30 a .m but it was not until daylight that the extent of the Spillage was appreciated. Subsequently it was not un til 12.30 hours that it was r eported to the Fire Brigade. The company pleaded guilty and were represented by Counsel . The Magistrates imposed a fine of £300 for failing to take precautions and £400 for failing to immediately notify and they awarded prosecuti on costs of £40 . (An ac count o f t his incident appears under "Notes and News" ) .

G. L.C

At Tottenh am Magi stra tes Court on May 5th , 1977 , the Petr oleum Branch of London Fire Br igade l a id seven char ges again s t Man sfield Pe tro leum Company Limi t ed o f Wi gan fo r con traven tion of Reg. 11 of the Conveyance Regulations 1957.

The draw off pipes were not protect e d a s required .

The lighting wiring was not he avily insulated and prote cted in places (four separate charges). The r ear two compartments were found to be l eaki ng (two charges). The incident, which occurred in November, 1976, resulted in a loss of 110 gallons of petrol leaking from the vehicle on its journey from Grays in Essex to Edmonton. The case was proved and the company were fined the maximum fine of £400 on each offence making a total of £2,800.00 with £105.25 costs. The company appealed against sentence, and the appeal was heard at the Appeal Court, Streatford, on 5th July, 1977. The judge allowed the fines to be reduced on the four infringements relating to the wiring of the tankwagon; these were reduced to £100 on each count. The unprotected draw off tap was also reduced to £100 fine. The leaking compartments (two) had the fines kept at the maximum of £400 each and costs of £100 were awarded in addition to thOse awarded by the magistrates court. The total fines after appeal were £1,300 with £205.50 costs.

KENT Conveyance - No fire extinguisher

At Dartford Magistrates Court on 15th September 1976, George Hawthorn the driver of a petrol tank wagon pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to carry a fire extinguisher on the vehicle. He was fined £50 .00. A similar charge laid against the owners of the vehicle, Nash Heating Oil Supplies Limited, of 8 , Ma nor R0ad, Romford, Essex was withdrawn after hearing that the company was in voluntary liquidation .

Mr. B.R . Nash, a director of the company did not appear and the case against him alleging that the offence was attributab l e to his neglect - S t· ec lon 37 Health and Safety at Wor k etc. Act 1974 was proved in his absence. The justices imposed a fine of £150.00 with £10 .00 costs .

Disused Petrol Tanks

At Mar gate Magistrates Cour t on 3rd November 1976, Mr . J. Tol ley Was f ined £80 .00 with £25 .00 costs for fai l ing to render safe thr ee di sused petrol tanks at Fort Road, Mar gate .

The defendant had pre viously b een before the Court on 18th March when he had been fined £5.00 and gi ven t hree months to comply wi th a noti ce served under Secti on 73 of the Public Health Act 1961.