It was September 26, 2019. The city of Rouen woke up under a huge black smoke. On the shores of the Seine, a chemical plant called Luprisol, classified as the high gate of Sevastopol, burns, one of the major industrial disasters since the 2001 AZF eruption.
read more: Two years after the Lubrisol fire, factory workers in Rouen could not forget the “black clouds”.
Two years later, the exact cause of the incident, which did not immediately cause casualties, is still unknown. Lubricol points to neighboring company Normandy Logistics, which has handed over part of its stake, but an expert report supports the fire at the plant site. The investigation into the alleged allegations continues.
Francinefo takes the thread of events.
September 26 and 27, 2019: Findings
Inspectors from the Regional Environmental Directorate (TRIAL), which is responsible for monitoring installations classified as lubricants, went to the scene. They cited a series of failures in assessing fire standards at Lubrizol and Normandie Logistique. Among other things, there is no fire detector in the outdoor storage areas of damaged warehouses The world. Based on their report submitted on October 28, the criminal investigation begins.
February 24, 2020: First charges
In early 2020, the American company Lubrisol was the first to report an environmental impact of a “leak of harmful substances” – 9,500 tons of smoked chemicals – and “improper functioning of a classified installation”. Lubrisol was then placed under judicial supervision, with an obligation to pay a deposit of 375,000 euros and a “Security” Up to மில்லியன் 4 million, depending on the requirements of the case. This amount should guarantee the rights of the victims “Compensation may be given for human and environmental damages due to crimes committed”, Explains Rami Heights, Attorney General of Paris.
March 31, 2021: Lubrisol seeks cancellation of its indictment
Lubrisol is competing against this charge in the Paris Court of Appeal. The company is asking for a complete cancellation. She Attacking the minutes of the trill, Argues about the discrimination of inspectors, key components of the process. “Conditions under which the diligent research process took place” By Drill, The flag trial and the preliminary inquiry seriously undermined the basic principle of the right to a fair trial and the interests of Lubricol France., She believes, inspires “Terrible Abuses and Contradictions”. For lubricol, Tril had “Especially in the context of problematic media pressure, Lubrisol aims to characterize a post- and imaginary incompatibility against France.”.
May 5, 2021: Two fines of 1,500 euros
The first offenses fall in May 2021. These are two fines of 1,500 euros, in addition to offenses worth the company for the offenses. They Following the inspection of the refinery operations of the Rouen plant at the end of 2021, During which many shortcomings were mentioned. There was only one person in the control room, compared to the two recommended by the protocol. Also, this person is not authorized for this job. The odors of the site were also not neutralized, contrary to the rules of the preceptor’s order.
June 30, 2021: Court of Appeal upholds indictment
Lubrisol’s arguments did not convince the Paris Court of Appeals, which confirmed the businessman’s allegations. At trial, the public prosecutor’s office opposed the company’s claim and accused it of wanting to “Escape from his trial”.
September 14, 2021: New charges
In the days leading up to the second anniversary of the fire, two new indictments, “discharge of harmful substances into water” and “discharge of harmful substances into freshwater,” were announced. Samples taken by the Fisheries Federation were sent to the examining judges. “The file regarding these two new facts is very conclusive, based on several models and analyzes in the dock. [un bassin où accostent des cargos], There are enough elements to talk about acute toxicity that affects fish, but it is also dangerous to humans. “, Reports AFP Simon de Carvalho, president of the Disaster Victims Association of the civil party Luprisol (ASL) in this case. When asked by AFP, the company did not want Lubrizol and its lawyer to react.