Day 24. December 3, 2008:Oil giant Total told the High Court the supervisor on duty on the night of the Buncefield disaster 'did not follow any normal procedures'.
Andrew Bartlett, acting for Total, told the hearing Graham Nash was 'distracted' and failed to monitor fuel levels before a tank overflowed, leading to the blast.
"He didn't apparently monitor at all," he said.
"He didn't follow normal practice
s in other respects.
"There is something very odd about this night.
"Somehow Mr Nash had been distracted from doing his normal job."
Justice David Steel asked: "By what?"
"We know not," replied Mr Bartlett.
"Mr Nash knew what he was supposed to do but for some reason his mind is not on his job."
Mr Bartlett, giving Total's final submissions in the trial, said working practices at the depot complied with industry standards.
He said claims that tank alarms were set to sound above safe filling levels were based on a 'mistaken premise' and 'there was nothing wrong with using alarms as aids'.
Mr Justice Steel commented: "So many disasters are caused by elementary errors.
"The question is whether the employer should embark upon the establishment of systems to try and eliminate very easy or casual errors."
Mr Bartlett said Mr Nash had been 'filling tanks for 10 years'.
"He (Mr Nash] was a very reliable chap on the whole," he said.
"He had good appraisals. He had a high interest in safety.
"He had just received his certificate of competence in tank filling just days before.
"The accident was caused by that unreasonable conduct of Mr Nash."
Residents and businesses are claiming damages of around £700million from Total and Hertfordshire Oil Storage Limited.
The trial continues.
