Petrol - Flow

filling openings of a tank wagon securely closed and locked, contrary to Regulation 12(2) of the 1957 Regulations, and b) not maintaining in good condition the locking devices of the caps of the filling openings, contrary to Regulation 11. The driver of the tank wagon also pleaded guilty to charge (a). The attendant at the licensed premises taking delivery of spirit pleaded guilty to a charge of permitting delivery to begin without ensuring that the quantity proposed to be delivered could safely be received by the storage tank (as a result of which there was an overfill and spillage) contrary to Regulation 16(6)(a). The company were fined £30 on charge (a) and £20 on charge (b) plus £5 costs; the driver was fined £10, no costs; the attendant was fined £50, plus £5 costs.

Conveyance: Delivery and Spillage At Epsom magistrates Court on 16th May, 1977, a tank wagon driver pleaded guilty to charges of a) not securing as far as reasonably possible that no petroleum spirit was allowed to escape into any sewer or drain, contrary to Regulation 3 of the 1957 Regulations and b) not keeping the draw-off taps in the carrying tank of a tank wagon securely closed and locked except during the operation of emptying the carrying tank, contrary to Regulation 13. Petrol was spilled and was allowed to enter the public surface water system. The driver was fined £100 on each charge, plus £40 costs.

Conveyance: Vehicle faults At Oxted magistrates Court on 14th July 1977, Cables Montague Limited of Fraser Road, Erith,Kent, pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to maintain in good condition the locking devices of the caps of the filling openings of a tank wagon, contrary to Regulation 11 of the 1957 Regulations. The driver of the tank wagon ple2.ded not guilty to a charge of failing to keep the caps of the filling openings of the tank wagon securely closed and locked, contrary to Regulation 12(2). The company were fined £300 no costs. The driver was convicted was fined £20, plus £25 costs.

PETROL - CONTINUING FLOW

by Arthur Pint

Hello again folks! Due to an underwhelming demand for more homespun logic I'm back.

in entire agreement with h' lm. It ould w obviously be unsafe if you were misled into something like paint or disinfectant Since the last time I had a few words your fuel tank. You could get stranded with you I've met a chap who claims to be mlles from anywhere - that's the danger. employed as a petroleum officer for t'Council. He was leaning on the bar at the local hostelry 1 b then tries to convince me that the supping a half of John Willy's mild -a sure a e ,llng should include the word "inflammable" sign of t eccen . . t rlCl y. He says a flammable substance l'S called inIf it's not flammable he calls Anyway he says I've got a very false and non flammable. I call it daft. misleading view about petrol, and it's more dangerous than I made out. He volunteered to Continuing his lecture, he went on to Put me right. I Not wishing thought he would. t b f d · you 0 e con use ln any .' , wa}, tell me how it was the gas or vapour which the petrol gives off that· th main hazard. Th' . lS e lS lS why undergro d kS are un petrol tan I'll tell you some yOU can decide for me alter my views, change your mind one you've got! of hlS strange ldeas and yourselves. He didn't make constructed . the suctl0n with a pipe. f'll' . 1 ger than 1 lng plpe on '. So th b ttom of the fl1llng but then you should never pipe is always covered e 0 with petrol. This is a it could be worse than the liquid seal. He began by saying that petrol cans had to be marked by law for safety reasons. I'm Now to me. in a time of energy crisis, thi: practice appears inordinately wasteful. On the basis 18 that the filling' plpe . lS two inches from

the bottom end, the suction pipe two inches above this. I estimate that most tanks will always have about 50 gallons of 'dead' petrol, just to give a liquid seal. My energy saving idea to beat this would be to arrange the filling pipe to terminate in a two gallon bucket from which petrol overflowed into the tank. The petrol remaining in the bucket would ensure the liquid seal and the suction pipe could then completely empty the tank. Forty-eight gallons of wasted petrol per tank could then be returned to circulation. He was unimpressed by my brilliant suggestion but no doubt we shall see it in years to come on Tomorrows World with his name shown as the inventor.

Next a scrappy bit of paper with drawing on one Aide (and the Hatdock runners on the other) was produced from his pocket. I could tell he wasn't too sure of his facts when he had to have a crib sheet. The drawing was of something that looked to me like a war time air raid shelter, and was labelled "Diagram of Petroleum Store". It was brick built, had a thick concrete roof and a heavy, metal, outward opening door.

He reckoned it was constructed in such a strong manner because of the danger should thp.re be a fire or explosion in the store.

Once again he'd hit the nail squarely vD the thumb. If there was an explosion the blast would be held by the concrete, channelled through the outward opening door and cause multiple claims for compensation from passersby. No, it seems to me that this monolithic structure must be to prevent people from breaking in to thieve the petrol.

If I was designing a store for an explosive substance I'd have a very light roof to' fly off and float gently to the ground in the event of a blast. Or if it was for a burnable product, why not have a thin cardboard lining in the ceiling wi th sand on top? As the cardboard burned away the sand could fall onto the fire and extinguish it.

These remarks seemed to agitate him somewhat, .but after drinking half of the pint I'd Just brought him he stopped sulking and if I had any questions about petrol.

Racking my brains in an effort to choose a new area for reasoned diSCUSSion "Liquified Petroleum Gas", I said. At juncture some of his drink seemed to take the wrong route. When he's stopped choking he explained that he coulrtn't deal with L.P.G.

"Why not?" I asked. "It's not a liquid and therefore we can't test it in the prescribed apparatus" he replied. you said it is the gas from petrol that is the most dangerous". "It is, but it's only the liquid pC"fl"ol that we can test". "Oh, I see," I said, not really seeing at all, "Don't you deal with any gases then?".

He thought for a moment, "Well, we do deal with liquid methane - that's the liquified version of North Sea Gas. The Gas Board liquefy it so that they can keep a large amount in a small space".

It seems wrong to me that there's no control over the L.P.I. which I install and use in my caravan, yet there is control over the liquid methane which is already supervised by experts who may have their '0' levels (or even City and Guilds) in gas. I presume it shows a lack of confidence in the experts.

To get back into favour with him (i t was his turn to buy a round) I thought I'd ask another question. Thinking to restrict it to liquid petrol I asked what safety conditions be applied to the petrol in the national network of pipelines.

. he got hiS This seemed to work S1nce round in although strange to sa Y hiS was a double whisky. He drank it in one. . the "We don't deal with petrol 1n national pipelines," he admitted. there must be f gallonS thousands 0 countered. of petrol in the pipelines," I

f thOUsandS "Yes. There are hundreds trol 0 over it. of tons but we , It's dealt with have no con Why don't h Ministry. . by t e . le like fil11ng you ask about something S1mp stations?" d .d have a query 1 · I 1 Anything to ob 1ge. 1 d note-acceptor w-fang e about one of those ne the other . d to use pumps which I had tr1e night. "WhV didn't it work? right up' its nozzle but no Could I have my pound back I pushed my petrol came please?" pc-und out.