AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Chemical fire costs £2,414

27th May 1993, Page 15
27th May 1993
Page 15
Page 15, 27th May 1993 — Chemical fire costs £2,414
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Van Hee Transport, one of three finalists as 1992 Environmental Operator of the Year, has been ordered to pay fines and costs of £2,474.98 for breaches of the hazchempak regulations.

The company appeared before Pontefract magistrates after one of its vehicles caught fire while carrying dangerous chemicals, closing part of the Al /11/162 junction for 36 hours and causing 11 people being taken to hospital.

Van Hee pleaded guilty to failing to give the driver the required training, under the 1992 Regulations, and to failing to ensure the required warning markings were displayed. It was fined £1,000 on each offence and ordered to pay .£474.98 prosecution costs.

Prosecuting for the Health & Safety Executive, John Sutherland said that Van Hee had a trailer switching facility in Normanton. The driver, John Irwin, had dropped a trailer off and picked up another trailer

containing the chemicals. The vehicle required markings 00 the front and rear, and informal ion needed to be available as to the nature of the load and the ad ion to be taken in the event of an emergency. That information was necessary to enable the emergency services identify the load and decide how to deal with it.

Irwin had said that as he left the Al he saw sparks coming from a trailer axle. He stopped the vehi cle and saw flames. He went to the cab for the fire extinguisher but the fire had taken hold.

The fire brigade was called by another driver and when they arrived there was no information to identify the nature of load, said Sutherland. The vehicle was not displaying the appropriate orange warning plates at the front and rear which would have indicated that a dangerous load was being carried. The driver should have received further training to meet the 1992 regulations. None of Van Hee's drivers had received that training.

Defending, John Grierson said that Irwin was an experienced driver who had been with the company for 19 years. He was employed on the night shift to move trailers from Gateshead to Normanton. He took the load concerned without checking what it contained. Documents were available but he failed to read them. He had taken all the consignment documents to Normanton and left them there. He had thought that as he was only a shuttle driver, it was not up to him to inquire what he was carrying.


comments powered by Disqus