Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

91. The first respondent submits that the height and consequently the weight of water in the tank for the purpose of testing was determined or limited on this basis. Further in the counter-affidavit it is stated that the limitation in the test load in this manner will not in any way affect the utilisation of the tank to the full capacity of 10000 tonnes.

92. We feel that the CBRI while recommending that the foundation is capable of bearing the load of a 10000 tonnes, they have not seriously taken into account the high risk element involved in the substance to be stored in the tank. We now note on the subject of failure of foundation and rectification that the testing was based on the limitations provided a deviation in the usual test prescribed in paragraph 9.1 on exceptional circumstances. We find it difficult how the experts have ultimately allowed the first respondent to use the tank for 10000 tons without adopting the hydro static tests they themselves prescribed at the outset and resorting to the limitations provided in paragraph 9.1.1 read with 9.1.3 of the API standards, even though the proposal of the rectification was aimed at using the tank only for 8000 tons.