§ 2.58 p.m.
§ LORD GISBOROUGHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the investigations by Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate into an accident at Teesside on July 24, 1971, when a gasometer was struck by lightning have now been completed, and whether they are satisfied that the gasometer was on that day being operated in accordance with the general recommendations laid down in British Standards Institute Code of Practice CP326:1965.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALRYN)My Lords, Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate have now completed their investigations into this matter. They are satisfied that the gasholder was being operated in accordance with the relevant recommendations laid down in British Standard Code of Practice CP326:1965, except that paragraph 212(m) was not being followed. This recommends that vents of any tanks containing flammable gas should either be constructed of non-conducting material or be fitted with flametraps, and neither of these arrangements was followed.
§ LORD GISBOROUGHMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. In view of the fact that the 3 million cubic feet gasholder was registering 2.8 million cubic feet at the time of the strike and, I understand, two hours afterwards, despite the fact that 0.3 million cubic feet were flared during that period, would not the noble Lord agree that it is quite likely that the instrument reading was in fact wrong and that at the time of the strike the gasometer was full and venting? Secondly, in view of the fact that the British Steel Corporation say that the lightning struck the vent pipe and that Dr. Golde stated in his report that had the vents been struck there would have been an explosion, does not the report of the Teesside Fire Brigade of an explosion indicate that the gasometer was in fact full and venting at the time of the strike? Finally, would not the noble Lord agree that it is essential, to avoid the risk of what might be a disastrous explosion, that when these gasometers are full and receiving too much gas, the surplus gas must be flared and not vented?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the evidence is not quite so emphatic as I 514 think my noble friend suggests. The cause of the fire has not been conclusively established. It seems unlikely to have been due to a discharge of gas through the vents, though it might conceivably have been due to a mixture of gas and air in one of the vents. Be that as it may, the British Steel Corporation have now prohibited the venting of gas during thunderstorms. Perhaps I ought also to add, as my noble friend quoted Dr. Golde, that what he actually said was this:
Theoretically if an explosive mixture existed in any of the existing venting places, a lightning strike could have caused an explosion. However, no explosion occurred, and if such a risk existed, accidents in this or other similar installations would have had to be expected. This possibility may therefore be discounted.