| Chemical giants Huntsman and Rhodia face huge fines after
a major 350-ton acid leak which saw the dangerous toxic material pollute
a Whitehaven beach, and the sea. Whitehaven Magistrates decided that their
fining power of up to £20,000 was not enough and the two multi-national
companies must now appear at Carlisle Crown Court, which has the power
to impose unlimited fines.
Rhodia pleaded guilty to allowing sulphuric
acid to enter the groundwater under the former Marchon site, before
the acid escaped on to rocks and into the sea through a natural geological
fault. Huntsman admitted failing to comply with an authorisation condition,
by failing to maintain the pipework through which the acid escaped.
A second charge of causing the acid to pollute the groundwater will
either be taken into consideration or withdrawn later by the prosecution.
All 350 tons of acid spilled from a tank, through a hole in connecting
pipework, which was eroded through lack of maintenance. Only 50 tons
of it was saved in a concrete bund because it too was damaged. The incident
happened in October 2002, while Rhodia was still handing over assets
to Huntsman, an American company which had taken over one half of the
site.
Rhodia accepted responsibility for the bund and Huntsman for the pipework.
The massive spill was 96% pure sulphuric acid; highly corrosive and
dangerous to humans and the environment with risks to swimmers, beach
users and marine life. Although 300 tons seeped into the ground, Huntsman
insisted that only about 12 tons reached the sea over a six-day period.
Presiding magistrate said there had been a failure to maintain equipment
over a long period of time. “Because the lapses are so serious and also
the size of the companies involved, we must defer sentence to the Crown
Court. Our powers are insufficient.”
A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said: “The only sensible
reason for not carrying out these stringent, regular and necessary checks
is that it would cost more and it is a difficult tightrope. However,
this was an aging plant and the risk was known. A balance has to be
struck between the cost of improvement or maintenance and the risks
to the environment and the public. “How much would it have cost to repair
or replace a concrete bund that was installed in 1997/98 and to test
or repair pipework last checked in 1992?”
Apart from an historical failure in maintenance, she said that mismanagement
in transferring assets from Rhodia to Huntsman and allocation of maintenance
from April 2001 onwards, was a significant factor. Both companies maintained
in court that there had been no financial motive and no cutting of corners.
The spokesperson argued that both the bund and pipework failures were
foreseeable. “The inspection of the bund ceased in September 2001, although
the weakness was known and not acted upon. It is clearly unacceptable.
“The pipeline failure was foreseeable given the previous history of
maintenance on the site and problems with leaks and erosion on acid
transfer lines.
“In April 2002 Rhodia made the last operators redundant, leaving no
structure in place for maintenance of the tank farm and associated pipeline,
even though they still owned it and an IPC authorisation covering the
tanks.
“Huntsman ultimately re-employed those operators and they continued,
among other duties, to rigorously check the lines from the tank farm
to the sulphonation plant although they were not expressly instructed
to do so.
“There appears to have been a singular on-going failure to carry out
any effective preventative inspections and maintenance of the bund.”
“The fact that a large amount of acid was recovered or neutralised was
down to fortune rather than operation control. The acid which was not
recovered and polluted the environment amounted to an estimated 300
tons.
“Huntsman operators were fully aware after September 2002 that pipework
was not maintained and that Rhodia personnel were no longer on the site.
These personnel were fully familiar with operations as they had previously
been Rhodia employees on the very same part of the site. Turning a blind
eye in such a way is unacceptable.
“It is clear that immediate and serious damage was caused to the ecology
of the area and this has been minimised in the movement of the tides.
“The initial beach survey showed significant impact on local flora
and fauna but subsequent surveys indicate no long-term damage.”
A large number of green shore crabs and common starfish perished as
some of the acid escaped into the Irish Sea, although the volumes were
impossible to measure. An acid plume was seen going towards the beach
and foreshore, with dislocation of rocks for about 100 metres towards
St Bees Head.
A spokesperson for Huntsman said there was no evidence of harm to the
public or drinking water. Of the prosecution cost-cutting claim, the
solicitor said: “It was not for profit. There was no attempt to cut
corners and deliberately make money. Each company genuinely believed
they were not in charge of what went wrong.
“Ownership of the pipework and bund slipped through the net of what
everybody intended should happen.
“Employees carried out the jobs they thought were needed. It was those
above who did not ensure proper operational arrangements were carried
on.”
A spokesperson for Rhodia said: “There was some maintenance but not
adequate on the bund. There was no financial motive. It was a case of
those people on the ground not doing what they should have done. Neither
was it a case of the company just giving things up and not doing anything.”
THE Crown Court hearing will be on July 9.
Story - Whithaven News 17th June 2004 |
