1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
Fine for toxic load offence:
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Birmingham haulier who admitted two offences under the 1986 Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages Regulations has been fined £2,800 by Harrogate Magistrates.
James Piercy, trading as J 8.z Son Transport Contractor: pleaded guilty to failing to ad quately train the driver of a vehicle carrying sodium cyan: and to failing to have a fire e: tinguisher on the vehicle.
A factory inspector told thl court that the offences came light after a Scania antic, carrying a 17.5-tonne container sodium cyanide, was stopped a hazchem check in January. Sodium cyanide was highly tc ic, he stressed. As little as 0.4g could be fatal — the amount being carried would 1 sufficient to kill the entire U1 population.
For Piercy, it was said tha the vehicle, which was being driven by a self-employed dri er, was working under subcontract to Intra of Birmingham. He had not been aware that the driver had been directed to pick up a load of sodium cyanide at the Billing ham plant of ICI until after ti vehicle was stopped in the check.
The magistrates asked wft no action had been taken against Intra and were told tl the responsibility for complyi with the regulations lay with the operator of the vehicle.