A Valve Failure Brings Charges On Syngenta
Dailycsr.com – 21 April 2016 – Syngenta, a global agrochemical firm, was convicted as one of its “reactive maintenance regime” was “partly responsible” for the release of 3.5 tonnes of toxic chemical.
A technician, who was carrying out maintenance work, by mistake “opened a valve” that was on an isotanker. The said incident took that in the Huddersfield’s plant of Syngenta. The accident leaked out “a solution of the herbicide paraquat dichloride”. The substance was apparently kept “at high pressure” and the HSE informs that it was an accident.
The staffs at Syngenta were in the process of transferring the toxic “chemical into the tanker”, following which the tanker would have moved to another plant. During the time of transfer, the staffs detected a “small leak on the dry break coupling”. The coupling had been designed to prevent any “accidental spills”. It had “two valves”, one placed on the top while the other was positioned on the “charging line” of the tanker.
However, inspector of HSE investigating the case, Angus Robbins informed that the “fitter suspected” a wear in the valve’s “spindle seal”. Likewise, he tried to figure out “if there was any play on the handle”. As he was trying to “move it the valve opened”, yet this should not have occurred as the past should have prevented it as a “mechanical stop”.
References:
http://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/
A technician, who was carrying out maintenance work, by mistake “opened a valve” that was on an isotanker. The said incident took that in the Huddersfield’s plant of Syngenta. The accident leaked out “a solution of the herbicide paraquat dichloride”. The substance was apparently kept “at high pressure” and the HSE informs that it was an accident.
The staffs at Syngenta were in the process of transferring the toxic “chemical into the tanker”, following which the tanker would have moved to another plant. During the time of transfer, the staffs detected a “small leak on the dry break coupling”. The coupling had been designed to prevent any “accidental spills”. It had “two valves”, one placed on the top while the other was positioned on the “charging line” of the tanker.
However, inspector of HSE investigating the case, Angus Robbins informed that the “fitter suspected” a wear in the valve’s “spindle seal”. Likewise, he tried to figure out “if there was any play on the handle”. As he was trying to “move it the valve opened”, yet this should not have occurred as the past should have prevented it as a “mechanical stop”.
References:
http://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/
Companies