Questions & Answers
Questions
1/ Do you admit that the plant was not properly maintained? The AZF site has been referred to as “rust-bucket plant”. Do you wish to comment on this?
2/ What do you think of the Public Prosecutor’s declaration three days after the disaster that “the cause of the explosion has been determined with 99% certainty: it is an industrial accident”?
3/ Why did you set up an internal commission of inquiry after the disaster?
4/ What do you think is the most likely cause of the explosion?
5/ ) Will you support the hypothesis that it was the result of a malicious act or even terrorism?
6/ People have accused you of covering up what really happened on 21 September. Is there any truth in this?
7/ Does Total acknowledge liability in this case?
1/ Do you admit that the plant was not properly maintained? The AZF site has been referred to as “rust-bucket plant”. Do you wish to comment on this?
It is not true that the plant was badly maintained, or a ‘rust-bucket plant”, as some have said.
Safety has always been a top priority for Total and the Group is continually trying to improve safety at all its sites. The plant had been certified ISO 9002 for more than 10 years and was the first of the Group’s Chemicals sites to achieve ISO 14001 certification, a recognised criteria for environmental performance. The site had also been cited by France’s Environment Ministry as a reference as regards townplanning management (Annexe 7 of the guidelines for “Town-Planning Management around High-Risk Industrial Sites”, October 1990).
The plant was one of the first in France – and the only one in the Midi-Pyrenees region – to boast an inspection department recognised by the Regional Agency for Industry, Research and the Environment (DRIRE). Furthermore, in 1998 and 2000 the Toulouse plant was awarded the “Silver Jupiter”, an internal trophy awarded by Total for 800,000 man-hours with no workplace accidents, even minor ones. So the term “rust-bucket plant” is totally inappropriate and has deeply shocked those who worked on the site, many of whom were among the victims of the explosion. AZF employees have on many occasions explained to the media and to police that they felt safe working on the site and that, despite what they had occasionally read in the press, they did not go to work each day “trembling with fear”.
2/ What do you think of the Public Prosecutor’s declaration three days after the disaster that “the cause of the explosion has been determined with 99% certainty: it is an industrial accident”?
His declaration was very surprising, coming so soon afterwards. The disaster occurred only ten days after the 9-11 attacks in America and people were very focused on terrorist attacks.
Perhaps the declaration was intended to forestall an excessive reaction by public opinion. But it should be pointed out once again that the judicial investigation has not so far determined the cause of the explosion. The nature of the phenomena observed by hundreds of people before the explosion, combined with the numerous studies done by the Grande Paroisse scientific experts, show that the official theory of a chemical mix causing the explosion has not been scientifically demonstrated. But they did not provide any other clues as to the causes of the disaster either.
3/ Why did you set up an internal commission of inquiry after the disaster?
Grande Paroisse was strongly criticised for setting up an internal commission of inquiry. However, whenever an industrial accident occurs, official regulations oblige the company involved to carry out an internal inquiry into the causes and to determine the measures necessary to prevent the same thing happening again. The company has to submit a report to the Regional Agency for Industry, Research and the Environment (DRIRE), which passes a copy of the report to the Prime Minister’s Office and the European Commission.
By setting up a commission of inquiry, Grande Paroisse was simply fulfilling its legal obligations regarding transparency.
Given the technical complexity of the disaster, Grande Paroisse called on outside resources, asking independent scientific experts and outside laboratories to take part in the inquiry, which also guaranteed that it would be objective. Furthermore, as a responsible industrial company Grande Paroisse wished to do everything possible to determine the real and exact cause of the explosion. Firstly, the company wanted to help prevent the same kind of disaster recurring, either at a site operated by Total or by another industry player. Secondly, the victims, the people of Toulouse and the people working at the site all had – and still have – a right to know the truth.
4/ What do you think is the most likely cause of the explosion?
To date, Grande Paroisse has no reason to give credence to any particular theory. However, it is clear that the scenario of an accidental mixing of chemicals put forward by the experts appointed by the Court is scientifically unsound and also goes against common sense. Also, that scenario provides no explanation for the numerous phenomena that preceded the explosion and that were reported by hundreds of witnesses. Grande Paroisse has also noted that certain leads were not followed up very thoroughly by the experts involved in the judicial investigation. In the final report there are numerous contradictions that have still not been explained and questions that have not been answered.
The one conviction held by Grande Paroisse is that the explosion was triggered in the main pile of nitrate inside the shed. This was also the firm opinion of the experts who submitted the report eight days after the disaster.
5/ Will you support the hypothesis that it was the result of a malicious act or even terrorism?
The Criminal Investigation Bureau has inquired into various occurrences just before and during the disaster:
- the suddenly aggressive behaviour of and threats uttered by warehouse workers inside the site towards drivers working for outside contractors,
- the body of a “strangely dressed” man, found after the explosion, identified as being that of the most aggressive of those workers,
- the results of an inquiry carried out by the French Security Service.
However, the information gathered is not sufficient to explain the disaster. Contrary to the declarations of the experts involved, it is quite plausible and technically possible that the explosion was caused by a criminal act. However, it is not the place of Grande Paroisse to carry out this kind of inquiry. The company does not have the right to do this, any more than it has the necessary tools or expertise. At present, Grande Paroisse is fully convinced, along with a large part of the scientific community, that chemical mixing was not the real cause of the explosion. From a technical viewpoint, the explosion could have been the result of a deliberate act, but this possibility was not fully investigated soon enough. The same is true of other possible causes. As a result, the cause of the explosion has still not been determined.
6/ People have accused you of covering up what really happened on 21 September. Is there any truth in this?
Right from the start, Grande Paroisse has cooperated fully with the police and with the experts appointed to determine the true causes of the disaster. The company has willingly provided them with all relevant documents and has made its employees available to answer all questions and explain the site procedures. Documents relating to the Group’s internal Commission of Inquiry, including analysis results, experts’ reports and witnesses’ testimony transcripts were also made available whenever requested by the experts or magistrates. Grande Paroisse has disclosed all information at its disposal. It has been very difficult to determine exactly what happened, and the Total Group fully understands the impatience of the victims, given that no explication has been forthcoming seven years after the disaster. Grande Paroisse has no interest in covering up the cause of the explosion, whatever that cause may be.
On the contrary, it is important for the company and the Total Group to know what happened on 21 September 2001. The disaster victims, the people of Toulouse and the site employees have a right to know the truth. And it is crucial to understand how the explosion was caused so that not only Grande Paroisse but the industry as a whole can take the necessary steps to ensure that such a disaster does not happen again.
7/ Does Total acknowledge liability in this case?
The fact of paying compensation to the disaster victims is not an admission that Total is responsible for causing the explosion. Grande Paroisse and the Total Group consider that the exact cause of the explosion has still not been determined and hope that the trial will shed full light on what happened and thus determine any liability. The representatives of Grande Paroisse, which is a Total Group company, and their legal counsel, will show firstly that the theory propounded by the experts is not technically, practically or scientifically valid, and secondly that the plant was properly maintained and complied with EU Seveso II regulations.
It should be noted that it is not Total that has been sent for trial before the magistrate’s court. The Group has been summonsed by one of the civil litigant associations to appear as a witness, but in the referral order (3 May 2007) the investigating magistrate dismissed the possibility of legal proceedings against Total. This is one of the particularities of the French judicial system.
Video
Publications
"The AZF Trial"