Port chiefs at Milford Haven are to be pros-ecuted over their handling of the Sea Empress oil spill disaster, it was announced yesterday.
The criminal charges were announced by the Environment Agency, shortly before publication of an official disaster report detailing numerous mistakes made in the February 1996 disaster.
The report blamed the initial grounding of the 147,000-tonne vessel on the inexperience of pilot John Pearn, who was guiding her into port.
However, it was errors after that which caused the second grounding of the ship and the spilling of 71,800 tonnes of oil the Marine Accident Investigation Branch said.
The Environment Agency charges have been brought against the Milford Haven Port Authority and the port's harbourmaster Mark Clive Andrews.
The case is expected to be heard at Crown Court, and, if proved, maximum penalties could run to #1m or two years' imprisonment.
The MAIB official report concluded:
q Some non-essential personnel were, riskily, allowed on board during the early stages of the salvage operation;
q The operation took as long as it did (six days) because there were insufficient tugs of the appropriate power and manoeuvrability;
q There was also a lack of full understanding of the tidal currents in the area;
q The onshore management team became too large and unwieldy to cope with a rapidly moving salvage incident;
q The principal responsibilities of some persons within the com- mand/control organisation ashore for dealing with the salvage operation ''were not clearly defined and this led to some confusion;''
q The Marine Pollution Control Unit's national contingency plan was deficient.
q The whole salvage incident would have been better managed by a small command team, acting as a single unit, with a clear leader and fully operational on a 24-hour basis.
q The oil pollution would probably have been avoided in the initial grounding if the Sea Empress had been constructed to the double hull design.
All at Sea - Page 13
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article