Analysis of an Industrial Accident - Coursework Example

Industrial Accidents Name: Institute: Table of Contents Industrial Accidents 1 Table of Contents 2 1.0Abstract 2 3.0 Causes of Industrial Accidents 4 4.0 Industrial Accident Examples 6 4.1 Imperial Sugar plant explosion 6 4.2 Enschede fireworks disaster 7 4.3 Sayano–Shushenskaya power station accident 7 4.4 Pakistan garment factory fires 8 5.0 Theories of Industrial Accidents 8 5.1 The domino theory 9 5. 2 Multiple causation theory 9 5.3 The pure chance theory and biased liability theory 10 5.4 Accident proneness theory 10 6.0 Acceptability of Industrial Accidents 12 7.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 13 8.0 References 15 Industrial Accidents 1.0Abstract For an industrial accident to take place, there have to be a genuine (direct or indirect) connection between work performance as well as the activity performed at the time the accident took place. Basically, the activity should as well have been done under the authority as well as control of the company. In this regard, the report seek to provide an insight about why and how industrial accidents occur, if an engineer predict or prevent them, wether there are acceptable accidents that human can live with, and if an engineer make the world safer 2.0 Introduction Reniers et al. (2007) defines an accident as an unnecessary occurrence that is by no means planned or scheduled. Scores of factors contribute to incidence of accidents; considerable fatalities and even physical damage can result subsequent to each occurrence. Such fundamental facts are well comprehended, but still industrial accidents continue to take place, damage of property accrues, work programs remain disrupted, and damages decrease personal earnings. Without doubt all industrial accidents are induced, that is to say, they are an outcome of human inaccuracy, and they entail hazardous activities or an insecure circumstance, or a permutation of both. Finger and Gamper-Rabindran (2013) posit that process enhancement prospect are at all times recognized after an accident, and propel remedial measures to be planned. Regrettably, the inbuilt capability of the surroundings or activity that at first caused the accident is hardly ever dealt with totally. Wei and Xia (2014) maintain that an industrial accident which occurs during work is an accident which, devoid of essentially being caused directly by work, was an outcome of a behaviour associated with work, a behaviour which was relatively vital to this work performance. The theory of work accident refers to an incident which took place while an engineer or other worker was engaged in a task associated with his/her job, even though this act was not optional. 3.0 Causes of Industrial Accidents Basically, nearly all industrial accidents are caused by human related activities. Human Error: most of the industrial accidents that take place yearly according to Lind (2008) are an outcome of human error. Scores of such accidents are an outcome of the employee failing to tag along the outlined workplace safety procedures enacted by the company. Based on the Bureau of Labour Statistics, most of the industrial injuries (75 percent) in 2009 occurred in the service-related industry. Besides that, when employees fail to utilize the appropriate equipment, accidents can take place, and also most injuries take place when workers try to utilize inappropriate paraphernalia to carry out their tasks. Wei and Xia (2014) posit that this can generate a safety hazard and damage the machines. Unsuitable Training: When workers are not educated appropriately or sufficiently, Lortie (2012) claim that industrial accidents are more possible to happen. Personnel must be trained how to run the machines in the manner it was intended to be utilized. What’s more, they must as well learn to use approved safety measures when running the machine. Workers must be familiar in what to perform in case a machine breaks down in order that they can work to resolve the setback hastily before it turns out to be difficult to control. During the 2009 BLS study, 4.3% of workers in the manufacturing industry were caught up in industrial accidents, and most of such accidents took place due to inappropriate workers training. Manufacturing Flaws: Industrial accidents that happen in most manufacturing industries are caused by manufacturing flaw. Such flaws according to Reniers et al. (2007) can be available in a part of the machine or in the utilised materials. Even though companies use numerous quality-control procedures at some stage in the manufacturing process, Lind (2008) argue that a number of these could fail. This is for the reason that loads of such control procedures are managed by workers. Where human beings are drawn in there will always be a possibility of human error. For instance, a machine inspector could fail to spot a flaw that took place during manufacturing, and so the setback may not be identified until after the accident has taken place. Inappropriate Maintenance: poor machine maintenance has time and again been blamed as a cause of industrial accidents. Lind (2008) suggests that maintenance of equipments or machines must be regular at scheduled intervals so as to ensure the equipment or machine operates safely and smoothly. Undoubtedly, when a part of machine is not correctly maintained, it may break down and eventually fail, and this can lead to calamitous consequences to the workers who are using the machine. 4.0 Industrial Accident Examples 4.1 Imperial Sugar plant explosion On February 7, 2008, a massive explosion and inferno took place at the Imperial Sugar refinery located in Georgia, leading to fourteen casualties and 38 others were injured, together with fourteen having severe and serious burns. According to Pitluk (2009) the explosion was stimulated by huge accretions of flammable sugar dust all over the packaging building. Sadly, Imperial Sugar was aware of the flammable dust hazard for decades prior to the accident. This plant was big and old, featuring archaic construction techniques. Pitluk (2009) believes this contributed to the asperity of the fire. The explosion origin was narrowed to the plant centre, and it was deemed to have happened in the silos. What’s more, investigators were not capable to go into the silos as Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ruled them to be extremely dangerous subsequent to the explosion. For this reason, the investigators were managed to just access the area subsequent to the demolition of the silos. Up to date investigators believe that the explosion begun in an underground store below the silos, from where sugar was conveyed to the packaging building. Other like Pitluk (2009) believes the outmoded building materials as well as techniques of the plant to have led to the fire severity. To make the matter worse, the ceiling was of groove and wooden tongue design. 4.2 Enschede fireworks disaster The Enschede fireworks disaster was attributable to a blaze, which erupted in the SE Fireworks depot on May 13, 2000, in Enschede. According to Kuttschreuter et al. (2011) the fire caused a huge explosion that left 23 individuals dead (which included four firemen) as well as over 900 wounded. The enormous explosion was felt almost 18 miles from the scene. As a result, almost 1500 houses were destroyed, leaving over 1,200 people without a roof over their head. The fire cause up to date has never been established. Investigators claimed that arson was one possibility, with more than a few arrests being made, but the fire department based their argument on electrical short circuit. As a result, the company’s two managers were jailed for fifteen months' for infringement of safety and environmental regulations as well as dealing in illegitimate fireworks. In addition they were found responsible of a blast with lethal results on account of neglect. Importantly, the disaster gave rise to intensified safety regulations in sale and storage of fireworks in the Netherlands (Kuttschreuter et al., 2011). 4.3 Sayano–Shushenskaya power station accident On August 17, 2009, a terrible accident occurred in Sayano–Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station in Khakassia, prompting the turbine hall ceiling to collapse, destroying 90% of turbines present, and as a result, 75 people lost their lives. Huang (2010) posit that the whole plant output, adding up 6,400 MW as well as a considerable part of the local grid supply, was mislaid, causing an extensive power breakdown in the region, as well as compelling main users likes aluminium smelters to opt for diesel generators. Prior to the accident, Sayano–Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station was the leading Russia hydroelectric power station, and the plant was run by RusHydro. Evidence proves that Turbine 2 had endured setbacks for a long time before the 2009 disaster. The first hitches surfaced in 1979, subsequent to its installation, and in the period between 1980 and1983, scores of more hitches with bearings, seals, as well as vibrations in the turbine shaft surfaced. During the turbine 2 reconditioning in 2000, Huang (2010) posit that cavities estimated to be 12 mm deep as well as cracks approximately 13cm long were located on the wheel of turbine and repaired. Lots of other flaws were discovered in the bearings of the turbine and afterward repaired. Furthermore, turbine 2 was further repaired in 2005, and the hitches observed were related in a number of aspects to the flaws seen during the past repair. Huang (2010) argue that the heightened turbine 2 vibrations were ongoing for almost one decade and were recognized by the plant workers. 4.4 Pakistan garment factory fires On 11 September 2012, Pakistani garment factories in the cities of Lahore as well as Karachi caught fire. According to Guerin (2012) the fires took place in a in a shoemaking industrial unit in Lahore and textile factory located at Karachi. The tragedy is deemed to be the most fatal and horrible industrial plant fires in the history of Pakistan, wherein 257 people lost their lives and over 600 people were seriously injured. Guerin (2012) believes that the fires were caused by faulty generators, while fire fighters blame electrical short circuit. Pakistan Garments factories need their own sources of power owing to a progressively more unreliable national grid. 5.0 Theories of Industrial Accidents Lortie (2012) defines accidents as unexpected events which lead to injuries, deaths, manufacturing loss or damage to assets as well as property. Basically, preventing accidents from happening is very hard without comprehending the causes of accidents. Raouf (2011) posit that loads of efforts have been made to build up a forecast accident causation theory, but hitherto none has unanimously been acknowledged. Scholars from various fields of engineering and science have been attempting to develop an accident causation theory, which can assist to recognize, detach and eventually dispose of the causes that lead to accidents. 5.1 The domino theory Lortie (2012) posit that 85 percent of the entire accidents are caused by hazardous behaviour of people, 13 percent by treacherous activities and 2 percent by natural activities. In this regard, reference suggested a five-factor industrial accident series, wherein all factors would trigger the subsequent step in a way of collapsing dominoes aligned in a row. The accident factors series is in this manner: (a) parentage as well as social setting, (b) employee error, (c) hazardous behaviour accompanied by physical and mechanical hazard, (d) accident, and finally (f) injury or damage (Raouf, 2011). It is worth noting that the exclusion of one domino in the line would break off the series of collapsing, Lortie (2012) recommends that taking away one of the factors would avert the accident as well as the ensuing damage or injury. This can be achieved if only hazardous behaviour is removed from the series. Even though there no facts about theory, Lortie (2012) posit that it still symbolizes a valuable point to initiate debate as well as a basis for future research. 5. 2 Multiple causation theory The multiple causation theory claims that for one accident there could be several causative factors, and that particular permutations of such factors lead to accidents. With regard to this theory, Raouf (2011) groups causative factors into two categories: first, Behavioural is a category that entails factors concerning the employee, like inappropriate attitude, poor understanding, insufficient skills as well as insufficient mental and physical condition. Secondly, the Environmental category consists of inappropriate protection of other harmful work factors and machine degradation through utilization of hazardous measures. Raouf (2011) asserts that the key role of this theory is to reveal the truth that hardly ever, if ever, is an accident an outcome of one act or cause. 5.3 The pure chance theory and biased liability theory Based on the pure chance theory, the theory maintain that every employee has an equivalent opportunity of being caught up in an accident. The theory further connotes that there is no solitary occurrence pattern that apparently causes an accident. Concerning this theory, Raouf (2011) posit that every accident occur naturally, and therefore, there subsist no intervention measures to prevent them from occurring. On the other hand, biased liability theory is rooted in the fact that once an employee is caught up in an accident, the probability of the same employee turning out to be caught up in future accidents are either augmented or diminished than other employees. However, this theory contribution is extremely small, towards creating preventive measures for averting industrial accidents (Factor, Mahalel, & Yair, 2007). 5.4 Accident proneness theory On its part, accident proneness theory argues that in a certain group of employees, there is division of employees who are more responsible to be caught up in accidents. However, research has not managed to verify this theory categorically owing to the inadequately performed research and conflicting as well as full of loopholes results. Raouf (2011) thinks that this theory must be reinforced s by experiential facts, since it almost certainly reports for just small part of accidents devoid of any statistical implication. Fig 1: Structure of Industrial Accidents (Raouf, 2011) The notion that accidents are caused and also may be prevented made it vital for Reniers et al. (2007) to examine factors that can probably lead to accidents occurrence. Reniers et al. (2007) posit that by analysing these factors, it will be easy to discern the main causes of the industrial accidents, which can be detached and vital steps, can be taken to avert the repetition of the industrial accidents. Such accidents’ root causes according to Wei and Xia (2014) can be categorised as causative and immediate causes. In this regard, the causative causes might be organization-based factors, the setting as well as the bodily and psychological state of the employee. On the other hand, the immediate causes are hazardous behaviours of the employee and insecure working state of affairs. Factor, Mahalel, andYair (2007) assert that the causes combination have to unite so as to give rise to an accident. Presently, accident causation theories are naturally theoretical and, in isolation, are of restrictively utilised in controlling as well as preventing accidents. Owing to such a multiplicity of theories, Raouf (2011) hypothesize that it will be simple to comprehend that no particular theory that is measured correct or accurate is collectively acknowledged. However, such theories are essential, but not adequate, for creating a reference framework for comprehending occurrences of accident. Based on the provided theories it is apparent that engineers cannot predict nor prevent accidents from occurring, rather they can reduce the number of occurrences by following the safety measures outlined by the company. 6.0 Acceptability of Industrial Accidents Basically, the risk acceptance concept according to Finger and Gamper-Rabindran (2013) poses the question, “How safe is safe enough?” or, precisely, the restrictive nature of risk evaluation arouses the question of which risk standard must be accepted by industries in opposition to which to standardize human prejudices. Wei and Xia (2014) posit that this question is imperative to issues like: (a) must there be an extra restraint shell around nuclear power plants? (b) Should learning institutions having asbestos be shut down? Or finally, can one stay away from all potential hazards, in any case temporarily? A number of the above questions are bound for regulatory bodies while others are directed to the person who should choose between particular behaviours and plausible vague hazards. Figure 2: Aspects of risk acceptance as well as risk rejection (Wei & Xia, 2014) Undoubtedly, when individuals see themselves to have adequate control over potential hazards, Raouf (2011) posit that they are ready to acknowledge the hazards to earn the benefits. Still, adequate control has to be rooted in profound data, evaluation, insight, assessment and lastly a best possible decision supporting or opposing the “hazardous idea”. Finger and Gamper-Rabindran (2013) maintain that sufficient risk management is an issue of systematising and maintaining an adequate level of control above the industrial activities, instead of repeatedly measuring chances of the accident. In a nutshell, one cannot prevent or control an accident before accepting the existence of hazardous factors that can lead to the occurrence of the accident. 7.0 Conclusion and Recommendations Without doubt engineers can make industrial workplace safe, only if the follow the outlined safety measures and ethical principles. Here are a number of ways that can be used in engineering companies to prevent occurrences of industrial accidents: Danger zone warnings. Without doubt scores of industrial accidents stem from ignoring to notify or caution workers about the danger zones in the company. As observe din the case studies, there are places in the plant that have engineering hazards, which can give rise to various forms of industrial accidents. Therefore, it is vital for employees working in hazardous setting to be warned in advance by the safety engineers. Equipment Quality assurance: Basically, industrial accidents can be caused by a machine or equipment whose quality has not been checked. As seen in Sayano–Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station, this can lead to fatalities. Therefore, machine and engineering equipments must be checked for quality occasionally. What’s more, the equipment or machine should pass the outlined OSHA or other standards before being used. Workers Training: Based on industrial accident causes we noted that worker lack of skill can lead to human error. Therefore, for personnel to work in hazardous environments, it is recommended that they have to be taught how to deal with certain machines, equipment as well as hazardous materials. Suitable management of dangerous waste materials: A number of industrial accidents take place on account of inappropriate discarding of hazardous chemicals as well as waste materials. Without doubt this can cause explosions and fires; therefore, workers must be advised on the suitable management and disposal of such materials so as to avoid unseemly occurrences. Health and safety inspection checks: There are some local and international safety bodies such as OSHA tasked with carrying out health and safety inspection checks in various industrial environments. Such bodies do not just inspect the place of work, but they as well offer training to workers, consulting for enhancement as well as diffusion of vital information with regard to industrial health and safety. Conclusively, it is imperative that every safety measure to be implemented so as to have a safe work setting where carelessness and ineffectiveness cannot be held responsible for occurrence of industrial accidents. Yes it is possible for engineers to make the world safer, but only if the follow the safety and health measures implemented by their company, and also being ethical in their day after day activities. 8.0 References Factor, R., Mahalel, D., & Yair, G. (2007). The social accident: A theoretical model and a research agenda for studying the influence of social and cultural characteristics on motor vehicle accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(5), 914-921. Finger, S. R., & Gamper-Rabindran, S. (2013). Testing the effects of self-regulation on industrial accidents. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 43(2), 115-146. Guerin, O. (2012, September 12). Death toll from Karachi factory fire soars. Retrieved from BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19566851 Huang, Y. (2010, 90-93 8). The accident at sayano-shushenskaya hydroelectric power plant. Retrieved from Shuili Fadian/Water Power. Kuttschreuter, M., Gutteling, J. M., & Hond, M. d. (2011). Framing and tone-of-voice of disaster media coverage: The aftermath of the Enschede fireworks disaster in the Netherlands. Health, risk and society, 13(3), 201-220. Lind, S. (2008). Types and sources of fatal and severe non-fatal accidents in industrial maintenance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38(11-12), 927-933. Lortie, M. (2012). Analysis of the circumstances of accidents and impact of transformations on the accidents in a beverage delivery company. Safety Science, 50(9), 1792-1800. Pitluk, A. (2009, October 1). Explosion Savages Massive Sugar Mill: What Went Wrong. Retrieved from Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4272856 Raouf, A. (2011, July 7). Theory of Accident Causes. Retrieved from ILO Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety: http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-viii/accident-prevention/item/894-theory-of-accident-causes Reniers, G., Pauwels, N., Audenaert, A., Ale, B., & Soudan, K. (2007). Management of evacuation in case of fire accidents in chemical industrial areas. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 147(1-2), 478-487. Wei, J., & Xia, W. (2014). Evaluation of Industrial-Accidents Management Performance in China. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 20(2), 537-558. Read More

Wei and Xia (2014) posit that this can generate a safety hazard and damage the machines. Unsuitable Training: When workers are not educated appropriately or sufficiently, Lortie (2012) claim that industrial accidents are more possible to happen. Personnel must be trained how to run the machines in the manner it was intended to be utilized. What’s more, they must as well learn to use approved safety measures when running the machine. Workers must be familiar in what to perform in case a machine breaks down in order that they can work to resolve the setback hastily before it turns out to be difficult to control.

During the 2009 BLS study, 4.3% of workers in the manufacturing industry were caught up in industrial accidents, and most of such accidents took place due to inappropriate workers training. Manufacturing Flaws: Industrial accidents that happen in most manufacturing industries are caused by manufacturing flaw. Such flaws according to Reniers et al. (2007) can be available in a part of the machine or in the utilised materials. Even though companies use numerous quality-control procedures at some stage in the manufacturing process, Lind (2008) argue that a number of these could fail.

This is for the reason that loads of such control procedures are managed by workers. Where human beings are drawn in there will always be a possibility of human error. For instance, a machine inspector could fail to spot a flaw that took place during manufacturing, and so the setback may not be identified until after the accident has taken place. Inappropriate Maintenance: poor machine maintenance has time and again been blamed as a cause of industrial accidents. Lind (2008) suggests that maintenance of equipments or machines must be regular at scheduled intervals so as to ensure the equipment or machine operates safely and smoothly.

Undoubtedly, when a part of machine is not correctly maintained, it may break down and eventually fail, and this can lead to calamitous consequences to the workers who are using the machine. 4.0 Industrial Accident Examples 4.1 Imperial Sugar plant explosion On February 7, 2008, a massive explosion and inferno took place at the Imperial Sugar refinery located in Georgia, leading to fourteen casualties and 38 others were injured, together with fourteen having severe and serious burns. According to Pitluk (2009) the explosion was stimulated by huge accretions of flammable sugar dust all over the packaging building.

Sadly, Imperial Sugar was aware of the flammable dust hazard for decades prior to the accident. This plant was big and old, featuring archaic construction techniques. Pitluk (2009) believes this contributed to the asperity of the fire. The explosion origin was narrowed to the plant centre, and it was deemed to have happened in the silos. What’s more, investigators were not capable to go into the silos as Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ruled them to be extremely dangerous subsequent to the explosion.

For this reason, the investigators were managed to just access the area subsequent to the demolition of the silos. Up to date investigators believe that the explosion begun in an underground store below the silos, from where sugar was conveyed to the packaging building. Other like Pitluk (2009) believes the outmoded building materials as well as techniques of the plant to have led to the fire severity. To make the matter worse, the ceiling was of groove and wooden tongue design. 4.2 Enschede fireworks disaster The Enschede fireworks disaster was attributable to a blaze, which erupted in the SE Fireworks depot on May 13, 2000, in Enschede.

According to Kuttschreuter et al. (2011) the fire caused a huge explosion that left 23 individuals dead (which included four firemen) as well as over 900 wounded. The enormous explosion was felt almost 18 miles from the scene. As a result, almost 1500 houses were destroyed, leaving over 1,200 people without a roof over their head. The fire cause up to date has never been established.

Read More