Posted By JAMES MM James, A bunded area is to retain any substance that may cause contamination to your work place and the environment. A bunded area must be able to hold 110% of the maximum amount of substance it can hold. So if you have a container which hold 1000ltrs of fuel the bunded area around it must be able to contain 1100ltrs. Hope this helps James

Posted By Chris Boocock James One of pieces of legislation that applies here is the oil storage regs. Which specify bunding. They do not - as I understand - require any transport pipeowrk or engine to be bunded. However, from memory they are specific about maintenance and inspection of pipework, and the owner / user has a responsibility under PUWER that the equipment be properly maintained. Sounds like the installation was ok - the subsequent operational & maintenance regimes may be questionable. Regards - Chris

Posted By jom >We had no ongoing maintenance >reposnsibility, just instillation. The >question is, should we have bunded the >generator as well as the tank? A fuel leak at a running generator? And you're worried about bunding? What about fire? Do you want to tell us what the "fault" was?

Posted By Alan Johnson This one is a can of worms James, and someone will end up having to foot the bill but there is not enough info to make any conclusion. I think that (without knowing the layout of the equipment) someone will be shown to have failed in their duty of care which would require that an environmental risk assessment should have been carried out prior to installation. if this assessment was carried out were suitable controls in place and was the location of the equipment the best choice on the site i.e. proximity to water courses or drains. Was it forseable that leakage could occur and if so were the environmental impacts assessed? Was the pollution to land or water or worst case did it pollute any groundwaters? was the site where installation covered by IPPC (or IPC)if so the site operator should have a much better understanding of the requirements of pollution prevention and control. I think that the chances of passing the blame down to the manufacturer will be extremely small as the question of forseability will be asked. With so many variables above my initial thoughts are that the generator should have been bunded (but by whom I cannot say) Please keep us informed of the progress of this case through the forum as it is evident from your question that this is an area (pollution prevention and control) which we all need to be fully aware of and which can affect any of us. Best of luck with your defense of this Alan

Posted By James Byatt Hi guys, further information, The jenny sat on a day tank. The feeder pipe (which was fitted at manufacture stage)between the day tank and the jenny failed causing the day tank to leak 350 gallons and yes, it did reach a water course which is when the problem was spotted. The client is charging us with the clean-up bill even though a sub-contractor of ours actually fitted the kit - they have no direct relationship (contract) with the subby so we're the first target. I'm still trying to find out if there was an emergency cut-off (which obviously failed). I hate all the legal rubbish which comes with these type of situations. Why can't the client say, "oh look, that pipe fitted to that machine has failed. Let's get the money back from the manufacturer. They've got a 1 year guarantee" AND it was the clients fault for not maintaining THEIR equipment (?) Instead, it comes to us, who send it on to our subbies, who then have to go the manufacturer. Along the way, everybody's legal fees are added on, a number of lazy solicitors after a quick buck make a mint for 2 hours work and one letter, everybody suffers from loss of time and it's all because a rubber pipe made 5 years ago in bora bora went a bit floppy too soon. A quick lesson in how to turn £30 grand clean up fees into £150 grand of costs. Sorry, rant over. Thanks for your help and input on this one. James

Posted By Simon Wright Based on the info supplied, and if your company is purely supplying and fitting the fuel tank and generator then why would you be held responsible for not bunding it correctly. The client should have a competent person specifying what is required in their workplace. If your company has provided the advice and specification to meet current requirements as the client's competent consultant on this issue then yes you would be expected to take a proportion of the blame. If current regulations require such installations to be bunded then the client must hold the duty to make reasonable investigations themselves or take on competent consultants to advise them. If I paid for someone to install a gas fire in my front room and then my house caught fire, I could hardly go back and blame the fitter for not installing a sprinkler system as well!

Posted By Liam Nolan Sorry I don't think I ave any real answers here, but some questions that may prompt you (or others) to finding a solution. A. it must be a big gen to have that size of a day tank. so were their engineers involve in specifying the installation. B. You did the installation and commissioning? Well if there was a commissioning, then you possible handed over a completion/commissioning cert, which was accepted by the client - which indicates that they were happy with the work. It also does look a little like they are looking for some payback after having gonthrough a fine of many thousands of pounds. (I honestly think they are chancing their arm to see if you will pay up. As you say you will have to pay vast amounts in legal fees - well so will they if you contest it. Will they through good money after bad? C. Do you have some type of insurance cover on work you complete to cover this type of liability - could be very handy. D. Did they do the design drawings (if the project required them). or did they get in a consultant to do the design (If so then maybe it is the designes fault for not including a bund. E. I'm sure it is differant to here (Irelend) but maybe not. but under environmental law it is their premisis so they are responsible for making themselves aware of environmental impacts their operation will have on the area - this includes control of there process (I'm and ISO14001 auditor as well as a Safety Officer). It seem to me the client was careless. F. was your installation a replacement generator for one that was being decommissioned? If so was the original gen bunded? h. How and who was responsible for maintenance and most importantly was the maintenance schedule implimented? If a weekly check is required (consult the O&M manual you would have supplied to the client) maybe one of the check was to inspect all pipes and hoses for signs of leaks. Hope some of this helps you.