Evacuation of Lesaka pools after a toxic cloud produced by mixing chlorine and sulfuric acid
http://www.navarra.es/home_es/Actualidad/Sala+de+prensa/Noticias+de+seguridad+publica/2009/11/19/Desalojadas+piscinas+Lesaka+escape+cloro.htm
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Six people have gone to the Lesaka health center for minor discomfort.
Image of the emergency teams that have worked on-site. (enlarge image)
Personnel from the Fire Service of the Government of Navarra belonging to the Oronoz regional park, in collaboration with the Foral Police, evacuated this morning the municipal pools of Lesaka after a toxic gas cloud was produced as a result of mixing sodium hypochlorite (chlorine) with sulfuric acid.
The evacuation was preventive since the tank where the reaction occurred is housed in separate compartments from the indoor pool area. However, users were asked to leave the premises with the dual purpose of preventing the contaminated air from spreading through the vents and affecting people, and to facilitate the work of emergency services.
The incident occurred at 10:40 a.m. The emergency room of 112 SOS Navarra did not receive calls from citizens for this reason, although several people who were in the facilities went to the local health center for minor discomfort such as itching in the eyes or nose. The Lesaka health center has treated 6 people and all had minor discomfort from inhaling the gases of the toxic cloud until it evaporated. In any case, there were no transfers to hospital centers.
Sulfuric acid supply through the wrong tube
The incident occurred when an operator accidentally supplied a solution diluted with 40 percent sulfuric acid into a chlorine tank of about 1,000 liters. The contribution should have been made to the adjacent drum but was poured through the wrong tube.
At the moment both substances interacted, an immediate reaction occurred. The increase in heat and pressure caused the lids of the drum where the mixture occurred to jump off, and a small part of the contents of the tank, which was tilted, spilled onto the floor.
Image of the tanks where the mixture of substances occurred. (enlarge image)
Fire Service personnel, equipped with special suits, resealed the drum lids to contain most of the mixture that was still in it. In parallel, they absorbed the spilled liquid on the floor with a mineral called sepiolite. Subsequently, the company Ecoiruña was responsible for managing those residues. On the other hand, the company in charge of supplying the substances intended for water treatment to the pools will remove the affected drum which, once sealed, does not pose a danger.
It should also be noted that a small part of the mixture spilled on the floor went down the drain. However, technicians from the Navarra Emergency Agency have clarified that it is a mixture of easy dissolution, therefore, it does not pose a danger to the environment.
The municipal pools of Lesaka are located on Antoiu Street, next to the Mastegi municipal football field and have both sports areas (gyms, multipurpose rooms for cycling, aerobics, pilates, yoga, etc.) and covered relaxation areas (thermal baths, saunas, jacuzzis, hydrotherapy pools, foot baths, etc.).
oj: SAP VI 440/2012 Id Cendoj: 01059370012012100285
http://www.poderjudicial.es/search/doAction?action=contentpdf&databasematch=AN&reference=6689432&links=mercancias%20peligrosas%20%E1cido&optimize=20130425&publicinterface=true
Court: Provincial Court Location: Vitoria-Gasteiz Section: 1 Appeal No.: 168/2012 Resolution No.: 329/2012 Procedure: Ordinary appeal procedure LEC 2000 Speaker: EDMUNDO RODRIGUEZ ACHUTEGUI Type of Resolution: Judgment PROVINCIAL COURT OF ALAVA ARABAKO PROBINTZIA AUZITEGIA Section: 1st / 1st.
AVENIDA GASTEIZ 18-2nd floor – C.P./PK: 01008 Tel.: 945-004821 Fax: 945-004820 N.I.G. / IZO: 01.02.2-10/014395 Ordinary procedure L2 / 168/2012 Originating Court: Court of First Instance No. 7 (Vitoria) / Gazteizko Lehen Auzialdiko 7 zk.ko Epaitegia Autos de 279/2010 (e) ko autoak Appellant/Plaintiff: TRANSPORTES ALEJO S.A. AND ZURICH CIA. DE SEGUROS Attorney: Dª SOLEDAD CARRANCEJA DÍEZ Lawyer: D. ALBERTO MURUA Respondent/Defendant: URDIBERA S.L.
Attorney: D. JULIÁN SÁNCHEZ ALAMILLO Lawyer: D. JOSÉ MANUEL COLLADO MARTÍN CIVIL APPEAL The Provincial Court of Vitoria-Gasteiz, composed of the Hon. Mrs. Magistrate Dª Mercedes Guerrero Romeo, president, Mr. Iñigo Elizburu Aguirre, and Mr. Edmundo Rodríguez Achútegui, magistrates, has issued on June twelfth, two thousand twelve,
IN THE NAME OF THE KING the following
J U D G M E N T No. 329/12 The civil appeal appeal file No. 168/2012, originating from the Court of First Instance No. 7 of Vitoria-Gasteiz, derived from the Ordinary Procedure No. 279/2010, has been filed by TRANSPORTES ALEJO S.A. and ZURICH CIA. DE SEGUROS, represented by the Procurator of the Courts Dª SOLEDAD CARRANCEJA DÍEZ, assisted by the lawyer D. ALBERTO MURUA, against the judgment issued on November 21, 2011 . URDIBERA S.L. is the respondent, represented by the Procurator of the Courts D. JULIÁN SÁNCHEZ ALAMILLO, assisted by the lawyer D. JOSÉ MANUEL COLLADO MARTÍN.
The Magistrate Mr. Edmundo Rodríguez Achútegui acts as rapporteur.
FACTS FIRST.- The Court of First Instance No. 7 of Vitoria-Gasteiz issued a judgment on November 21, 2011 , in ordinary procedure No. 279/2010, whose operative part states: «To grant the claim filed by Mr. Julián Sánchez Alamillo on behalf of URDIBERA SL against TRANSPORTES ALEJO SL and ZURICH SEGUROS, condemning the defendants jointly and severally to pay the amount of 54,128.61 euros plus legal interest, which in the case of the insurer will be those of Article 20 of the LCS, and to pay the costs.»
Subsequently, a clarification order was issued on December 23, 2011,
whose operative part states: «There is no place for clarification of the judgment in the terms requested according to the legal reasoning of this order.»
SECOND.- Against the aforementioned resolution, an appeal was filed by the representation of TRANSPORTES ALEJO S.A. and ZURICH CIA. DE SEGUROS, alleging that the judgment had not been corrected through the clarification requested to acknowledge that there had been a partial admission for 50% of the claim, incorrect assessment of evidence, legal infringement for not applying Article 22 of Law 16/1987 , of Article 27 of RD 551/2006 , and incorrect application of transport regulations to the declared liability, as well as lack of action.
THIRD .- The appeal was considered filed by a providence of January 26, 2012, giving the corresponding transfer to the counterparty for ten days for allegations, the representation of URDIBERA S.L. presenting a written opposition to the appeal filed by the opposite party, subsequently elevating the records to this Provincial Court.
FOURTH.- Upon receipt of the records in the Secretariat of this Chamber, on February 24, the Appeal Roll was formed, registering and assigning the rapporteurship to Mr. Edmundo Rodríguez Achútegui.
FIFTH.- By providence of March 21, it was decided to schedule the ruling for May 24.
SIXTH.- In the processing of this appeal, the fundamental legal prescriptions have been observed.
LEGAL GROUNDS FIRST .- On the facts URDIBERA S.L. is responsible for the operation and management of the sports facilities of Lesaka, owned by said municipality. URDIBERA S.L. has a comprehensive maintenance contract with HIDROCONTROL S.L. The latter acquired chemical products from ACIDEKA S.A. for the maintenance of the facilities and pool, specifically sulfuric acid, which was brought to the location by TRANSPORTES ALEJO S.L., insured by ZURICH CIA. DE SEGUROS.
ACIDEKA S.A. hired TRANSPORTES ALEJO S.L. to carry a load of sulfuric acid to the Lesaka pools on November 19, 2009. The driver assigned by the carrier arrived at the destination, where he was received by a cleaning employee, and inadvertently erred by placing the tube in the inlet mouth, which he placed in the sodium hypochlorite tank, instead of the corresponding one, causing an explosion that damaged the tanks.
SECOND .- On the extent of the sentence The first reproach made by the appellant to the judgment and the order that denied the clarification is that it does not mention the partial admission, amounting to 27,064.31 euros. The reason must be accepted in accordance with articles 267 of the Organic Law 6/1985, of July 1, on the Judicial Power (LOPJ) and 214 of Law 1/2000 , of Civil Procedure (LEC), since it is not possible, as stated when denying the correction, to defer to the execution of judgment the verification that such partial admission occurred, admitted by order of March 2, 2011, which became final and was executed by delivering the aforementioned amount to the plaintiff.
It is decisive that such procedural circumstance reducing by half the potential sentence of the defendants be recorded, so that they cannot be sentenced to the full amount claimed in the lawsuit if during the proceedings they have paid half. It also affects the amount of costs and, substantially, when requesting execution.
Therefore, the first group of reasons referring to this omission must be accepted, so it must be acknowledged that there was such partial admission for the indicated amount.
THIRD .- On the legal infringement The appellant then denounces the infringement of Article 22 of Law 16/1987, on Land Transport Regulation (LOTT), as it points out that the figures of the shipper, carrier, and consignee are transcribed incorrectly, confusing. It argues that the same happens with Article 27 of RD 551/2006, of May 5 , which regulates road transport operations of dangerous goods in Spanish territory.
The appellant’s thesis is that the judgment attributes to TRANSPORTES ALEJO S.L. the consideration of shipper and unloader when it is a simple carrier. Although the appealed decision does not adequately specify the position of those who intervened in this process, it correctly describes the obligations arising from such situation. Although the signed contract is missing from the records, the parties have admitted that ACIDEKA S.L. sent chemical material to HIDROCONTROL S.L. to meet the maintenance needs of the Lesaka pool.
However, such intervention occurs within the framework of contractual relations that obliged the parties, so the company receiving the goods is actually subcontracted by URDIBERA S.L., which in turn is the concessionaire of the municipality. From this perspective, the shipper referred to in Article 22.1 LOTT is ACIDEKA S.L., as it hires the carrier, TRANSPORTES ALEJO S
.L. URDIBERA S.L. is the consignee or recipient, which acts through HIDROCONTROL S.L., to which maintenance of the sports facilities is entrusted.
From this perspective, Article 22.2 LOTT would imply the exclusive liability of the carrier, provided that its third paragraph attributes it when unloading is done by itself or by means of persons dependent on it. The norm states that «this responsibility shall be borne by the carrier, whether or not there was an express agreement to that effect, in all those cases in which it was he himself, or the personnel dependent on him, who carried out the operations referred to in the previous paragraphs.» The testimonial reveals that the truck driver arrived, spoke with a cleaning employee, and himself placed the tube in the incorrect intake. He did not wait for HIDROCONTROL S.L. or URDIBERA S.A. personnel to arrive, so although there is no record of an agreement, the driver’s action employed by the carrier obliges him.
The appellant opposes Article 27 of RD 551/2006 , whose last paragraph provides that «The shipper-unloader shall be responsible for complying with all obligations established in this Royal Decree and in the ADR regarding loading and unloading of the vehicle and the operations necessary to carry them out, with the sole exception of unloading of fuels exclusively used for domestic purposes, understood as that intended for heating sanitary water, heating, and kitchens, which, unless otherwise agreed, shall be the responsibility of the carrier.» It infers from it that there is liability in the appealed party, which is considered the unloader.
The concept is legally explained in Article 2.f) of the same RD 551/2006 , which states that «Shipper-unloader: the natural or legal person under whose responsibility the loading and unloading operations of the goods are carried out, in accordance with the rules established in Article 22 of the Land Transport Regulations.» That is, and in view of the legal rank provision, the carrier, since its driver performed by himself, without waiting for indications from others, the operation of attaching the tube to the wrong intake.
The appellant also understands that the European Agreement on International Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road, concluded in Geneva on September 30, 1957, which regulates in its section 7.5 the form of unloading, has been violated. Such a rule, however, is not applicable because the driver of the carrier decided to start the operation by himself, without waiting for any control or signing the corresponding delivery note.
Therefore, the figure of the consignee cannot be identified with that of the unloader, since it was the driver’s decision to act by himself that leads to his liability.
The speculation about what would have happened if Mr. Raimundo, maintenance manager of URDIBERA S.L., had received the goods, regardless of the sense of the answers to the speculations submitted to him, does not exempt such liability because he simply was not there and did not act. Therefore, it is irrelevant that ACIDEKA S.L. has not been sued, what would have happened if others had intervened, and the other questions raised, seeking to apply Article 1,903 of the Civil Code, because there is no question about the facts, and it is unequivocal that the driver acted without waiting for anyone.
All this implies, ultimately, the dismissal of this second group of grounds of the appeal, as the action is partially estimated reducing the sentence to half given the partial admission already made.
FOURTH .- On the lack of action Finally, it is argued that the plaintiff in the instance lacks action since she claims the amount of a pro forma invoice of 36,182.14 euros, which is not such, as document No. 4 of the lawsuit, which supports it, is a list of damages, parts, and cost prepared by HIDROCONTROL S.A. In reality, the causation and extent of the damages are corroborated with various evidence, not only this disputed document. The expert reports highlight them, as well as the intervention of other companies whose invoices and intervention are in the records.
The appellant herself has recognized the extent of the damages because she agrees to half of them, accepting the amount claimed in the lawsuit. Therefore, there is no lack of action, but a claim for the amounts of the damages, whether or not they have been repaired and paid to whoever repaired them, all of which implies the dismissal of this last reason, so the appeal will be partially upheld reducing the sentence to half given the partial admission.
FIFTH .- Deposit to appeal As established by DA 15th.8 of Organic Law 6/1985, of July 1, on the Judicial Power (LOPJ), the return of the deposit made to appeal is decreed to the appellant.
SIXTH .- Costs In accordance with Article 398.2 LEC , there is no award of costs for this appeal.
Seen the cited articles and others of general and pertinent application
WE RULE 1.- TO PARTIALLY ESTIMATE the appeal filed by the Attorney of the Courts Ms. SOLEDAD CARRANCEJA DÍEZ, on behalf and representation of TRANSPORTES ALEJO S.A. Y ZURICH CIA. DE SEGUROS, against the judgment of February 9, 2010, issued in the verbal proceedings No. 1522/2009 by the Court of First Instance No. 3 of Vitoria-Gasteiz.
2.- TO REVOKE said judgment, modifying only the amount of the sentence, which is reduced to 27,064.31 euros, with all other aspects remaining.
3.- TO ORDER the restitution to the appellant of the deposit made to appeal.
5.- There is NO AWARD of the costs of the appeal.
WAY TO CHALLENGE: Against this decision, an appeal for cassation for legal interest may be filed, as well as an extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement if the former is admissible, in writing, in the case of both in one, before this Provincial Court and within a period of twenty days from the day following the notification of that decision, with its knowledge corresponding to the First Chamber of the Supreme Court ( Article 479 LEC ).
With certification of this decision and an order letter, the original records are sent to the originating Court for its knowledge and execution.
So, by this my Judgment, I pronounce it, order it, and sign it.
PUBLICATION.- The foregoing Judgment was given and pronounced by the Honorable Judges who sign it and read by the Honorable Magistrate Ponente on the same day of its date, of which I, the Judicial Secretary, certify.