Enforcement Action at a Non-Compliant Chemical Storage Facility

The highest-risk finding is the toluene tank: a 20 m³ flammable liquid store without a bund and with a faulty level indicator creates a credible loss-of-containment, fire, and environmental scenario. Immediate intervention is justified because the risk is imminent and the controls are absent or unreliable. The next highest risk is the outdated process safety management system, because it means hazards have not been systematically identified and controls have not been maintained; this is a systemic weakness rather than a single defect. The signing of drawings by a person with expired registration and the use of an unregistered chemist as resident engineer are serious regulatory breaches because they undermine engineering assurance, but they are not immediate physical hazards in the way the tank is. The ignored warning letters are an aggravating factor that affects the choice of enforcement instrument, not the ranking of physical risk. The odour complaint should be investigated as a possible emission and exposure issue, but it should not displace the tank as the priority.

A prohibition notice should be served on filling, transferring, and storing toluene in the unbunded tank until a compliant bund, a functioning level indicator, and a written safe operating procedure are in place. An improvement notice should cover the process safety management review, the registration status of the signing engineer, and the competence of the resident engineering role. Prosecution should be considered for the repeated non-compliance and the use of an expired registration, but it should not replace the immediate risk controls. Advisory action alone is unsuitable because two warning letters have already been ignored and the tank risk is imminent. Sealing the entire facility would be disproportionate if the toluene system can be isolated while other lower-hazard operations continue; sealing should be used only if the company refuses to comply or if the danger cannot be contained by isolation. The enforcement response should be proportionate, targeted, and sequenced so that the highest risk is controlled first.

The inspector should document the evidence with photographs, measurements, and witness statements; serve the notices in writing with clear contraventions, required actions, and deadlines; and explain the appeal or representation route. The company should be given an opportunity to respond, but the prohibition on the toluene tank should take effect immediately because of imminent danger. Follow-up inspections should verify the bund, level indicator, and safe operating procedure before the prohibition is lifted, and should track the improvement notice actions to closure. The consultant engineer argument should be assessed on evidence, not title. A monthly visiting consultant can provide advice, but the facility still needs a resident or clearly designated registered engineer with defined responsibility for engineering decisions, and the drawings must be signed by a registered engineer competent in the relevant scope. If the consultant signs off work outside their competence or without authority, that is not a defence. The company should be required to produce the consultant's registration details, scope of appointment, and signed records; the expired signatory must be replaced and the affected drawings reissued.