Investigators find 325 tonnes of hazardous chemicals onboard cargo ship

[rooster59]

Investigators find 325 tonnes of hazardous chemicals onboard cargo ship

By The Nation

 

 

Investigation has revealed that the cargo ship, which caught fire last week at Laem Chabang Port, contained 325 tonnes of calcium hypochlorite.

 

“This is a hazardous substance and was the cause of the explosion that spread the blaze on the ship,” Deputy Transport Minister Pailin Chuchottaworn told reporters on Friday. He was at the port to follow up on the incident. 

 

According to Pailin, the 13 containers of calcium hypochlorite on the ship had not been declared at every step.

 

“The containers were declared at the origin and destination, but not during the route,” he said. 

 

Pailin added that the ongoing investigation will also determine if there were any other chemicals on the ship that had not been properly declared. 

 

“Police are looking into the case and have interviewed some 100 witnesses,” he said. 

 

Due to the explosion, fire and resulting chemical leak, up to 3,500 tonnes of seawater near the port has had to be pumped out for treatment.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30370360

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2019-06-01

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[mikebell]

21 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

3,500 tonnes of seawater near the port has had to be pumped out for treatment.

Where was it pumped to?  How many gallons/litres to the tonne?  How do you treat seawater?  Who killed Cock Robin? Is it OK to read books by Orwell now?  So many questions; so few answers.

[RotBenz8888]

If they dumped it in Pattaya , no one would have noticed.

[masuk]

42 minutes ago, mikebell said:

Where was it pumped to?  How many gallons/litres to the tonne?  How do you treat seawater?  Who killed Cock Robin? Is it OK to read books by Orwell now?  So many questions; so few answers.

One tonne = 1000 litres of fresh water.  Not too many places use gallons any more, and they're different both sides of the pond.

[Pedrogaz]

1 hour ago, RotBenz8888 said:

If they dumped it in Pattaya , no one would have noticed.

It would have cleaned up the water in Pattaya. Incidentally TV should do a survey of how many readers have actually been in the water in Pattaya....I know I haven't.

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, Pedrogaz said:

It would have cleaned up the water in Pattaya. Incidentally TV should do a survey of how many readers have actually been in the water in Pattaya....I know I haven't.

I have, not this millennium though!

[Chassa]

Calcium hypochlorite, pool chlorine. 

[inactiveposter]

It was declared at origin and destination but not en route. And that makes a difference how? Declared at destination would indicate acceptance, right? So was it supposed to be disallowed? The mind boggles.

[taipan1949]

42 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

It would have cleaned up the water in Pattaya. Incidentally TV should do a survey of how many readers have actually been in the water in Pattaya....I know I haven't.

Thirty plus years I lived in Thailand and fifteen in Bang Lamung and only was in Pattaya bay once by mistake, I was drunk and fell off my returning fishing boat this was after I stepped around a turd on the beach on one of my first visits to the City.

[RotBenz8888]

47 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

It would have cleaned up the water in Pattaya. Incidentally TV should do a survey of how many readers have actually been in the water in Pattaya....I know I haven't.

There are no survivors...

[P Funk]

26 minutes ago, taipan1949 said:

Thirty plus years I lived in Thailand and fifteen in Bang Lamung and only was in Pattaya bay once by mistake, I was drunk and fell off my returning fishing boat this was after I stepped around a turd on the beach on one of my first visits to the City.

Sh*t happens...

[hotchilli]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The containers were declared at the origin and destination, but not during the route,” he said.

I thought an earlier statement said that no hazardous materials were known to be aboard the ship?

[johng]

I thought an earlier statement said that no hazardous materials were known to be aboard the ship?

Yes that was "yesterday" now they find tons of "unregistered" toxic chemicals...tomorrow it will all be just be a big "misunderstanding"

[Guest Jerry787]

6 hours ago, hotchilli said:

I thought an earlier statement said that no hazardous materials were known to be aboard the ship?

exactly , earlier media statements were saying so, indeed today its viceversa.

the point its if such hazardous materials were declared on BL, means that departure port and custom where aware, the shipper and ship owner were informed, as well the destination were officially informed.

means the guilt its on the port authorities.