Sponsored by
Alarm systems not industry requirement
Buncefield trial. Day 17. The Buncefield High Court trial heard there were no industry requirements to have independent alarm systems in place when filling fuel storage tanks.
The 2005 disaster occurred when alarm systems and a final cut-out switch failed to operate and a tank overflowed.
Raymond Rich, an expert witness on oil storage operational negligence, told the court he had 30 years' experience at a terminal at Aldermaston.
Andrew Bartlett, acting for Total, referred to industry recommendations and asked him under cross examination: "There are no requirements for independent high level alarms to be fitted and working during filling?"
Mr Rich replied: "Not in my research."
Previously the trial had heard it was common practice at Buncefield to use alarms to know when a tank was full and to use tanks where the final cut-out switch was out of service.
Mr Bartlett and Mr Rich clashed repeatedly on the what constituted safe practices at oil terminals.
Mr Bartlett told him: "I suggest your views are unrealistic."
Mr Rich replied: "My view is based on 30 years plus operating tank farms.
"Therefore I understand my view to be more coherent with the demands of an operational site."
Mr Bartlett sought to show the recommendations on safe practice in Mr Rich's report concerning the Buncefield depot were not included in written procedures at Aldermaston.
Mr Bartlett told the court: "I think you would agree a depot can be properly run that has written procedures that contain very little."
Earlier Leonard Magrill, a director of Hertfordshire Oil Storage Limited (HOSL) and a Chevron employee, had given evidence to the hearing.
HOSL was a joint venture between Total and Chevron that ran the part of the depot where the blast took place but Chevron is attempting to prove Total was in fact responsible and must pick up the tab for the disaster.
Dr Magrill was presented with agreements and minutes from meetings identifying HOSL as the operator of the depot.
Lord Grabiner, acting for Total, told him: "What these documents show is that it was well understood by you and the other members of the board of HOSL that HOSL was the operating company."
Mr Magrill replied: "It's an interpretation we don't agree on."
Residents and business are seeking damages of around 700million from Total and HOSL.
The trial continues.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Hemel Hempstead
Wednesday 08 February 2012
Today
Cloudy
Temperature: -3 C to 1 C
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: -1 C to 2 C
Wind Speed: 6 mph
Wind direction: South
