Home / NEBOSH IGC / Scenario practice / Fuel depot loading gantry fire

Fuel depot loading gantry fire

Written by Imran Qureshi (NEBOSH)

8 study tasks, 100 available practice points. 6 management-focus, 1 technical and 1 cross-unit tasks.

How to use this practice

Official assessment guidance checked November 14, 2026:

Scenario

You are a health and safety adviser who has just been appointed by Harbour Fuels Depot (Harbour), a storage terminal that receives petrol and diesel from a coastal pipeline and loads it into road tankers. Harbour has 62 employees and about 25 contractor staff, who include tanker drivers employed by haulage firms, maintenance fitters and security guards. The depot runs 24 hours a day. A depot manager (DM) leads the site, with an operations supervisor (OS) and a maintenance manager (MM) who report to the DM. The fuel is kept in six large tanks inside a bund wall. Tankers are loaded at a gantry with four bays, where the driver connects a hose, scans a card and starts the loading from a control box.

Harbour is under pressure to cut the time that a tanker spends on site, because customers are charged a fee when queues form. The DM tells supervisors that every minute saved is money saved, and the number of tankers loaded each shift is posted on the wall of the control room. Harbour has an annual health and safety report, but it records only the number of lost time injuries and says that these are low. Near misses are discussed informally, and no figures are kept. The previous safety manager left eight months ago and has not been replaced.

Harbour has a safety policy that is signed by the DM. It says that the DM has overall responsibility, and it does not name anyone else. A fire risk assessment was carried out by an outside consultant three years ago. It was not updated when the fourth bay of the gantry was added or when the vapour recovery unit was installed. The assessment says that flammable vapour may be present around the loading bays, and recommends a gas detection system with an alarm and automatic shut-down of the pumps.

The gas detection system was installed, but two of the detectors at the gantry have been out of order for several weeks, and the control room has been told to ignore the fault alarms because they stop loading. The earthing system for the tankers has a bonding clip with an interlock that stops the pump if the clip is not connected. Drivers say that the interlock is slow to reset, and the operators have been seen using a jumper lead to bypass it. The foam system for the gantry has not been tested for 14 months. There are fire extinguishers at each bay, but several have no inspection tag. Signs that forbid mobile phones at the gantry are faded, and drivers often use their phones while they wait.

Contractors work at the depot almost every day. The permit to work system is a single page form that the OS signs. It does not require a gas test, a check of the work area or a time limit, and it is often signed in advance for the whole week. Contractor staff receive a 10 minute induction from a security guard, which is given in English. Maintenance fitters say that they are asked to start work before the area has been checked, because the tankers cannot be loaded until the job is done. The mutual understanding between operations and maintenance is poor, and each blames the other when a job is delayed.

The depot has an alarm system with sounders around the tank farm. The muster point is in the car park next to the main gate, which is on the downwind side of the gantry. There has been no evacuation drill in the past two years. The depot has a small fire team of six volunteers from the operations staff, but only two of them have had fire training in the last year. The nearest public fire station is 20 minutes away. The first aid room is staffed by a trained first aider during office hours only. At night, the control room has a first aid box and a list of emergency numbers that is out of date.

The incident

At 11:20 on a Sunday, a contractor welder was repairing a damaged guard rail on the platform beside bay 3 of the gantry. The permit for the job, signed on the Friday, said 'general repairs'. No gas test was done. Bay 2 was loading a tanker with petrol, and the two broken detectors at the gantry had not been repaired. The jumper lead was in place on the earthing interlock at bay 2, so the pump ran without a verified connection. Petrol vapour collected at the platform and was ignited by a spark from the welding. The flash fire passed along the gantry and ignited the tanker. The driver of the tanker, who had been on the platform using his phone, was badly burned. The welder was also burned. The control room operator was slow to press the emergency shut-down because the gas alarm did not sound, and he had to see the flames on the camera. The fire alarm was heard in the tank farm only faintly, and some workers went to the wrong muster point. The foam system did not work properly. The fire lasted for 90 minutes before the public fire service put it out. The tanker driver died six days later in hospital, and the welder is permanently disabled. The DM says that the contractor should have known better than to weld near a petrol tanker, and asks you to report on the incident.

Supporting document 1: Gantry inspection and maintenance log, last four months (extract)

Kept in the maintenance office. Reviewed by: nobody recorded.

MonthItemReported byAction recorded
Month 1Gas detector 2 at gantry showing faultControl room operatorWork order raised. Part not ordered
Month 1Earthing interlock bay 2 slow to resetTanker driverOperator told to reset by hand
Month 2Gas detector 4 at gantry showing faultControl room operatorFault alarms set to silent
Month 2Foam system test overdueFitterPostponed because of loading targets
Month 3Hot work permit signed for the whole week at bay 1ContractorNo gas test recorded
Month 3Near miss: small fire at the hose connection, put out with a hand extinguisherTanker driverNot entered in the accident book
Month 4Fire at the gantry, one worker dead and one disabledOperations supervisorUnder investigation
Task 1: Hazards and risk assessment

GIC1 + GIC2 cross-unit application. Related syllabus: 3.4 Assessing risk; 10.1 Fire principles; 10.2 Preventing fire and fire spread.

Identify the hazards at the gantry and explain why the fire risk assessment arrangements at Harbour were not suitable and sufficient. (12)

Note: You should support your answer using relevant information from the scenario.

0 words

Task 2: Preventing fire and explosion

GIC2 technical application. Related syllabus: 10.1 Fire principles; 10.2 Preventing fire and fire spread.

Outline the controls that Harbour should have in place to prevent a fire or explosion at the loading gantry. (12)

Note: You should support your answer using relevant information from the scenario.

0 words

Compare weak and stronger answer extracts for task 2

Original teaching extracts for this task, not a complete 12-point answer or an official mark scheme. No marks are awarded to these extracts. Read the task note before using the evidence.

Weak extract

The depot needs more signs and training. Hot work and faulty equipment should be controlled.

Why it is weak

  • This gives no explanation of the simultaneous loading and welding in the incident.
  • Signs alone do not establish effective control of ignition sources or failed safeguards.

Stronger extract with annotations

Developed point 1

Welding beside bay 3 took place while bay 2 was loading petrol. The first control question is whether hot work can be avoided or separated from the hazardous operation; work must not proceed on the strength of a general-repairs permit without competent assessment and verified precautions.

Why this is stronger: Connects ignition-source control to the actual conflicting activities without inventing a universal safe distance.

Developed point 2

The earthing interlock was bypassed with a jumper lead, so loading continued without a verified connection. The bypass must be stopped and the safety function competently restored and checked; making it reset faster is not evidence of adequate static-control performance.

Why this is stronger: Explains the lost assurance and avoids promising that bonding eliminates every ignition risk.

Developed point 3

Two gas detectors were faulty and the foam system did not work properly during the fire. These are failures of protective layers, requiring competent assessment of operation restrictions, repair and functional verification, rather than assuming that installed equipment is available protection.

Why this is stronger: Separates installed hardware from verified performance and does not prescribe an emergency firefighting tactic.

Develop the rest of your answer

Add supported points on preventing releases, suitable equipment, maintenance and safe operating arrangements. No universal detector layout or tanker-driver position can be inferred from this extract.

Control principles checked November 14, 2026. These are educational explanations, not operating instructions; apply competent site-specific assessment and local duties.

Task 3: Permit to work and contractors

GIC1 management focus. Related syllabus: 3.7 Permit to work systems; 1.3 Who does what in organisations.

Describe the weaknesses of the permit to work system and the control of contractors at Harbour, and outline how they should be improved. (14)

Note: You should support your answer using relevant information from the scenario.

0 words

Task 4: Roles and responsibilities

GIC1 management focus. Related syllabus: 1.3 Who does what in organisations.

Outline the health and safety responsibilities of the depot manager, the supervisors and the contractors at Harbour, and say what the board of the company should do to show its commitment. (10)

Note: You should support your answer using relevant information from the scenario.

0 words

Task 5: Training, competence and communication

GIC1 management focus. Related syllabus: 3.2 Improving health and safety culture; 3.3 How human factors influence behaviour.

Outline the information, instruction and training that tanker drivers, contractors and operators at Harbour should receive, and the ways in which communication on site could be improved. (12)

Note: You should support your answer using relevant information from the scenario.

0 words

Task 6: Emergency arrangements and fire response

GIC1 management focus. Related syllabus: 3.8 Emergency procedures.

Outline the emergency arrangements that Harbour should have for a fire at the gantry, and explain the weaknesses that the incident showed. (14)

Note: You should support your answer using relevant information from the scenario.

0 words

Task 7: Incident investigation

GIC1 management focus. Related syllabus: 4.1 Investigating and reporting incidents.

Outline the steps that Harbour should follow when investigating this incident, and give the immediate and underlying causes that an investigation would be likely to find. (14)

Note: You should support your answer using relevant information from the scenario.

0 words

Task 8: The case for health and safety

GIC1 management focus. Related syllabus: 1.1 Morals and money; 1.2 Regulating health and safety.

Explain the moral, legal and financial reasons for Harbour to improve its management of health and safety, using the incident as an example. (12)

Note: You should support your answer using relevant information from the scenario.

0 words

Practice points counted across all tasks: 0 of 100. This teaching set is not a scored GIC1 mock or a GIC2 assessment.