UK's Petrol Regs Get "Face Lift" ... After 70 Years

Jamie Thompson reports on why the UK doesn’t have fire codes, what laws it does have on petrol, how they work—and why and how the system is being changed in April 1999.

UK petrol stations today operate under the same licensing system as did this Esso station in Twickenham, England in 1964, and other UK stations—ever since 1928. That system is about to change. Photo courtesy of Jamie Thompson.

As the UK contributor to PE&T, one of my main challenges is to understand the language differences between UK English and U.S. English. The person who appreciates my challenge most is Kally Fraser, the PE&T editor who valiantly translates so you can understand me.

Recently I received a request to write about UK fire codes, and this turns out to be one of these differences of understanding. We do not have "fire codes" as such in the UK. We do have laws governing the storage and dispensing of gasoline, and we do have codes of practice on the construction of petrol filling stations (gasoline stations) and on the operation of these establishments. And these two areas are what I think I have been asked to describe.

London bridges
The history of petroleum law in the UK goes back to the 19th century when petroleum was first discovered and used as lamp oil. Petroleum soon replaced the rather smelly oil made from whale blubber, and was exported from the U.S. into the UK by way of the port of London.

At that time in the U.S. there were laws dictating the minimum flash point of oil sold for lamp oil, but no such restrictions existed on this side of the Atlantic. Those marketing "gentlemen" from the U.S. oil industry sold all that surplus low flash oil to Europe, with the main port of entry still being London.

The inevitable happened. In one year, 122 deaths occurred from fires caused by this low flash oil—in London alone. The Home Secretary of the time was forced to resign. In 1876, the government passed new laws requiring a license to store and distribute petroleum, and stipulated the minimum flash point for petroleum oil sold to the public.

That year the first petroleum inspectors (Fire Marshals) were appointed in London (No, I came much later!). An early report from an archive shows an inspector stopping a man with a horse and cart. The cart had a large wooden tank on it. The operator was selling oil to Londoners and had two taps protruding from the wooden tank.

One tap carried the notice "standard oil;" this oil was sold to the poorer parts of London. The other tap was marked “special refined safe oil.” This oil sold at a higher price to the richer parts of London. Opening the tank, the inspector found only one compartment in the tank. He calculated that those wealthy Londoners had been subjected to an early “oil industry marketing scam.”

Regulating petrol
With the advent of the motor car, the rapid development of service stations occurred in London between 1920 and 1930, with hundreds of service stations built to cope with the demand. At the time, the two main competitors were the Anglo American Oil Co. (Exxon), selling Pratts gasoline, and the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (BP).

Carless, Capel & Leonard (CCL) operated the first refinery in the UK in the Hackney district of east London. In addition, CCL manufactured motor spirits for a young man called Mr. Royce for his new fangled motor car, the Rolls Royce. In fact, CCL had a trade name for its gasoline--it was called "Petrol"—that was soon adopted into the English language. This is why, to this very day, our gas stations are known as petrol stations.

UK's Petroleum Acts required people storing petrol to have a license, which was obtained from the petroleum inspectors who were appointed by the local authority. The local authority was not necessarily the Fire Marshal but, sometimes, the officers who dealt with weights and measures for the petrol dispenser.

The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act was enacted in 1928, due in large measure to the intervention of a young Home Secretary, Winston Churchill. There was a need to improve regulations regarding petrol. It was used in a variety of unusual situations, including as a dry cleaning fluid for clothing. In 1911, Churchill decided that a full public inquiry should be held to decide how to regulate petroleum in the UK. It took 17 years to accomplish; but in 1928, The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act came into being.

It is a tribute to Churchill's efforts that this Act of 1928 is still enforced today. The Act requires a license to store petroleum, similar to the licenses required in 1876. It also says that, to ensure public safety, the petroleum licensing authority may put whatever conditions it deems necessary on getting the license.

I am sure that many of my fellow regulators in the U.S. would like such seemingly open-ended powers. However, in reality, UK regulators are required to act responsibly, and not to be unreasonably demanding. (And, of course, anyone who knows me knows how reasonable and responsible I am!)

This 1938 road tanker replaced the horses and carts that once carried around large wooden tanks. Photo courtesy of Jamie Thompson.

Horse trading policy
In London, licenses are issued for three years and renewed after that period if everything is okay. The issuance fee is only around $300. Conditions on the license are standard throughout the UK, with site-specific conditions added that can be applied to particular premises if necessary. For example, a petrol station building in London under an office block may have a condition on its license that limits the delivery of petrol to that station while the offices are closed (i.e., at night).

Conditions are put in writing to the applicant, and can be negotiated with some "horse trading" often taking place. As in all UK legislation, there is a right of appeal; and that appeal can be made directly to the Government minister who appoints someone to hear the appeal. This can take some time. In fact, three years is not unusual. A lengthy wait discourages industry, which, of course, wants quick results.

Over the years, the Act of 1928 has worked well because, for one thing, it is not prescriptive. While codes are permitted to develop, the regulators must adapt and be reasonable in their demands as time goes on. This method of legislative control has operated successfully for 70 years and there is an element, certainly amongst the regulators, who do not want to see this changed. They are, after all, content with the regulations they know, but change will occur.

In with the new...
In the last decade, the previous Administration decided to reform all legislation and de-regulate to assist industry. The Act of 1928 was one of those pieces of legislation that is being reformed. Industry, in particular, had not been happy about the appeals process within the Act, and felt that there was an inconsistency of enforcement across the country.

Change is on its way. By next year we expect new legislation to change the enforcement principles (beginning April 1, 1999). The Health & Safety Executive has been given the task of writing this legislation, aided by all sides of industry. After full consultation, the regulations are now being fine-tuned before being made into law this autumn.

The main change is to remove the license requirement and, instead, to introduce a consent regime with a requirement for operators to adopt a risk-assessment approach to the design, construction and operation of a petrol station.

All existing petrol stations will receive initial consent, but new ones and those being altered must approach the authorities and request to have their applications considered. All stations will then be subject to periodic consent renewals. Part of the application consideration process will be the completion of a risk assessment on the impact that the petrol station is likely to have on its neighbours and on those visiting the site. Operators who fail to complete a risk assessment can be taken to court and face penalties.

The new legislation will provide powers to the regulatory authorities to take action if they are still in dispute with station operators at the time of change. Many of us believe that the powers under the new regulations will be far stronger than under the current ones.

This petrol station would likely be limited to receive petrol deliveries outside of regular office hours as a condition of its license. Photo courtesy of Jamie Thompson.

High risk, high standards

Risk assessment is a simple approach in theory. Those petrol stations presenting the highest risk should be constructed to the highest specifications of construction with secondary containment, leak detection and other safety features.

Equally, a gas station away from people and houses and, therefore, risk, may adopt a less costly approach to construction in the knowledge that, if a leak or release does occur, it is unlikely to affect many people. The legislation will also require operators/owners to carry out a risk assessment to determine what can go wrong and who it may affect. The regulators then check to see if they agree with the assessment.

One problem people encounter is the confusion between the words hazard and risk. Hazard means anything that can cause harm (e.g.,petrol). Risk is the chance, high or low, that someone will be harmed by the hazard.

My advice to petrol station operators is to assess the risk at a gas station by following five simple steps:

Step 1: Look for the hazards. With a petrol station, the hazards can be identified. The delivery, storage and distribution of petrol to customers are all hazards.

Step 2: Decide who might be harmed and how. People who live close to the site could be harmed by petrol leaking from the installation. Customers—they come in all guises including the disabled, children and expectant mothers—could also be harmed. They also may be there when the tanker truck comes to deliver gasoline.

Step 3: Evaluate the adequacy of existing precautions. Consider the risks involved with each hazard. This will determine whether you need to do more to reduce the risk. You should also decide whether the risk is high, medium or low. The ideal is to minimize all risks. Ask the question, "Can I get rid of the hazard altogether?" If not, ask, "How can I control the risks so that harm is unlikely?"

Practically speaking, this could mean replacing aging single skin tanks with new double skin storage tanks. Another alternative is to fit leak detection equipment and good management controls into place. This will reduce the risk of petrol entering the environment and causing harm.

On the delivery aspect mentioned above, one good management control is to place barriers or cones around the delivery truck to discourage members of the public from entering this work area.

Step 4: Record your findings in writing. This requirement is in place to ensure that people record their findings at the time of the assessment. These records can be reviewed by the regulator.

I have seen a risk assessment written on one sheet of paper and others written like a book. There is no set procedure; but whatever the documentation is, it should show everything that has been considered. The document needs to persuade, amongst others, the regulator that the site is safe.

Step 5: Review your assessment regularly and revise it if necessary. This is to ensure that the assessment is checked over, even if nothing alters each year. Two things that will change are the age of the installation and the fact that the risk of leakage will gradually increase. Regulators will visit the sites periodically to check that the sites are safe with, again, a risk-based approach being used. Sites situated over the underground railway in London are likely to get frequent visits (three per annum) due to the high risks, while others out of town may only be visited every other year.

There are a number of factors which can affect the level of risk (i.e., the chance someone will be harmed). Therefore, the following are examples of what should be considered:

• frequency and method of delivery
• storage capacity, type and age of tanks
• type and age of lines
• method of distribution (pressure or suction systems)
• volume dispensed (throughput of gas station)
• method of leak detection
• type and layout of dispensers
• site location site related to neighbours, basements, watercourses, etc.
• number of employees and visitors to the site
• training and competence of site operatives

The main thrust of the risk assessment approach is that the people creating the risk (the oil companies and their operators) should be responsible for ensuring that sites are constructed and operated safely. One important part of the legislation will be that, although the words reasonably practical are used, the ability to pay for control measures is not a deciding factor as to whether they are reasonably practical and, therefore, necessary.

One of the London petrol stations built to keep up with the increasing demand for gasoline in the 1930s. Photo courtesy of Jamie Thompson.

When it comes to risk assessments, one factor to consider will be the safety of the public during petrol deliveries. Photo, courtesy of Jamie Thompson. (1960)

Inspectors in training
I support the thrust of the proposed new regulations. They are intended to make people operating petrol stations, who, after all, create the risk, more aware of their responsibilities.

At the present time, too many people just want to know what they have to do in order to comply. They do not want to understand and know the reasons why they need to carry out the work. The big challenge for us in this period of change is to make sure that all parties are capable of understanding risk assessments properly. This means a big training need for both regulators and industry.

The problems associated with that vary. London has a dedicated professional petroleum inspectorate that does nothing else but regulate gas stations; training these inspectors is far easier than training someone who is multi-disciplined and only deals with gas stations once a month!

Being an observer of human nature, however, I guess the operators will fall into the following categories after next April: those who carry out the risk assessment conscientiously; those who pay someone to carry out the risk assessment for them; and those who will complain about the bureaucracy of it all and against whom we will have to take action for non-compliance.

So, you see, our “fire code” in the UK is quite different than the fire codes in the U.S.!

Discuss