CASE STUDY 2 -Explosion during tank washing operation: A recent case study on board a chemical tanker which was related to an explosion[Fig-4] while carrying out the tank cleaning operation. As chemical tanker needs high purity of wash before loading next cargo so the vessel completed tank cleaning and after that checked the wall wash of the tanks but the result was not satisfactory. After that the ship’s crew decided to carry out Methanol spray using high pressure hose inside the tank to obtain the required standard of WWT(Wall wash Test) though which was not recommended. This was conducted using a portable air driven pump placed on the top of the methanol drum. The pump connected to a small hose which used as discharge hose for spray …show more content…
The crew was working on deck for tank cleaning operation and at the same time hot work was going on. No intervention was done while doing hot work and methanol spray operation simultaneously. The explosion should have avoided if any of the crew members applied stop work policy. 3. Top senior management officer shown very negligence in there rule as they all are certified by the IMO to sail as Master/Chief engineer and it’s not practicable that SMT unaware of the hazardous associate with the above operation. 4. On board the chemical tankers, it is very common to use of various chemical for achieving high purity of cleaning standard. Some of the chemical need wall wash test up to a certain level before loading. There are a lot of chemical in the maritime industry which can use to attain the result for wall wash. As methanol is a highly flammable and considering the risk associate with methanol, maritime industry not support to use methanol spray for tank preparation which was neglected by the ship’s …show more content…
After the incident the management of the ship decided to off land all the flammable detergent/chemical to ashore so that the ship’s crew not able to use the same. 6. An alternate way for cleaning the tanks being sought by using non- toxic and non-flammable detergent. Also, management have to check the availability of the chemical in the market and industry acceptance. The crew must be well familiar for the proper use of the chemical before cleaning the tanks. [10] Case Study-3:Tank explosion case on-board a chemical tanker: Prior loading of next cargo the vessel was required to carry out gas free and cleaning operation of the cargo tank. To complete the gas free operation, vessel used de-humidifier system which produce air and passed to the cargo tanks via forward store. [36] After completion of loading and three days before the incident, five new crew members went to forward store for familiarization with the junior officer and smelled of cargo vapor which was very strong, however same was not reported to the senior officer on board.
On April 9, 1997, Rig 52 that belonged to Mallard Bay Drilling was towed to a location in the territorial waters of Louisiana, where it drilled a well over two miles deep. After the well was almost complete an explosion occurred killing four of the crew and injuring several others. Seeing that this was a marine casualty in navigable U.S. waters, under existing regulations the United States Coast Guard responded. When the investigation was over the Coast Guard did not find any violations of their regulations and noted it was an uninspected vessel and the operator held an Operator Uninspected Passenger Vessel (OUPV) license. Soon after the incident the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited Mallard Bay Drilling for violations
dangers in the nuclear plant because the bosses just ignored it. The bosses and workers are not
The drought was near historic high levels for the time of year. In the moments before the entrapment on of the squads and the crew boss trainee were working with a fire engine and its three person crew when a spot fire erupted right next to the road. The seven Northwest Regular Crew number six and a engine crew got in there vehicles and drove south past the fire along the edge of the road. While driving they radioed the other 14 crewmembers who were working north further up the river about the dangerous situation. The 14 crewmembers and the incident commander and two Northwest Regular number six squad members were suppressing spot fires between the river and the road ¼ mile north of the first squad when they were informed of the situation that was threatening there es...
Patricia Mullins and Leta Farley, two of the employees injured in the blast, filed a $60 million lawsuit against multiple companies whom they blamed for the explosion, including Appalachian Heating LLC, ThompsonGas Propane Partners LLC, Ferrellgas Inc., BP America Inc., Little General Store, Inc. and Godfather’s Pizza Inc. In addition to this lawsuit, the numerous safety recommendations made by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board were adopted. The recommendations include the improvement of training requirements for technicians and the improvement of emergency response actions from on-scene technicians and 911 operators.
Wright III, B. (1998, November). The Chemical Warfare Service Prepares for World War II. Retrieved from http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec98/MS274.htm
in proper manner resulting in a chemical and thermal burn hazard for law enforcement, clean up
Fries, A. A., & West, C. J. (1921). Chemical warfare,. New York [etc.: McGraw-Hill book company, inc..
...t of the officers who failed to carry out those procedures, not of the procedures themselves, according to the Board of Inquiry.
For the traditional oil painter, this technology affords an odorless medium that dries quickly and can be easily applied in an impasto manner. Cleanup is an effortless soap and water rinse, with no need for mineral spirits or alcohol. For those pensive artists who chew on their brush ends, the flavor of the oil paint and thinner will be missed.
“On March 23, 2005, at 1:20 pm, the BP Texas City Refinery suffered one of the worst industrial disasters in recent U.S. history. Explosions and fires killed 15 people and injured another 180, alarmed the community, and resulted in financial losses exceeding $1.5 billion.” (U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2007) There are many small and big decisions and oversights that led to the incident. Underneath all the specific actions or inaction is a blatant disregard for addressing safety violations and procedures that had been pointed out to BP even years before this event. The use of outdated equipment and budget cuts also contributed to the circumstances that allowed this accident to happen.
FM 4-02.285, Multiservice Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries (2007, CDC Emergency Preparedness and Response, (2003, April 3). This page includes links September 18), Headquarters, Department of the Army
Rodney Rocha is a NASA engineer and co-chair of Debris Assessment Team (DTS). When possibility of wing damage appeared he requested an additional imagery to obtain more information in order to evaluate the damage. This demonstrates that he actually tried to resolve the issue. However, due to absence of clear organizational responsibilities in NASA those images were never received. Since foam issue was there for years and risk for the flights was estimated as low management decided not to proceed with this request. After learning of management decision Rocha wrote an e-mail there he stated that foam damage could carry grave hazard and have to be addressed. At the same time this e-mail was not send to the management team. Organizational culture at NASA could be described as highly bureaucratic with operations under standard procedures only. Low-end employees like Rocha are afraid to bring any safety-related issues to the management due to delay of the mission. They can be punished for bringing “bad news”. This type of relationship makes it impossible for two-way communication between engineers and managers, which are crucial for decision-making in complex env...
BP turbulent history can be considered the impalement to the current safety and operational procedures. BP had emphasized personal safety and improvements, but the company had a personal injury rates that accounted for 95% of the injuries related to the oil industry. Following the Gulf oil spill disaster, a number of safety recommendations were endorsed by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. It was then BP realized the future of the company was in its on hands and possibly sealed, if they didn’t address the much needed safety and operational procedures. The organization had a clear understanding
Agent Orange was sprayed from the years of 1962 to 1971 by airplanes, boats, helicopter and soldiers with backpacks. They sprayed 3,181 villages, wreaking havoc and devastation to these areas. Not only did the Vietnamese suffer from the after-effects of Agent Orange, but some U.S. soldiers also became sick due to this deadly toxin. In the U.S., people were exposed as well. The employees that were loading the tubs on to the planes and those who also handled the backpacks of it were affected. At the U.S. Army Chemical Corps. The workers were impacted because the barrels were stored on site before th...
Storage and use of cleaning materials; Bulk cleaning agents shall not be stored in areas where food is prepared, processed, and/or stored. (Not accordance with the standard), some cleaning materials were store at the kitchen nearby foodstuffs.