Buncefield Incident and its Effects on Surrounding Developments and the Environment - Case Study Example

On 11 December 2005 the Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal, commonly known as the Buncefield oil depot, caught fire that was characterised by a number of explosions. This was the largest fire that Europe had experienced since the Second World War. The depot had a capacity of about 60 millions gallons, making it the “fifth largest fuel distribution depot” in the United Kingdom at the time (British Broadcasting Corporation 2005). The inferno consumed about 20 big oil storage tanks (BBC 2006), and caused minor earth tremors (BBC 2009). It had various effects on people, buildings and the environment in general, and raised concern over how the site could be rehabilitated. This document reports on the Buncefield incident and examines its effects on the environment and adjacent developments. It further examines issues associated with redeveloping the land destroyed by the fire. A summary of the Buncefield incident The Buncefield incident was a result of failures of the means used to terminate the inflow of fuel into the storage tanks. A level gauge meant to regulate inflow of fuel into one of the storage tanks failed to work leading to overflow and loss of fuel from Tank 912 located in Bund A (Buncefield major incident investigation Board 2006, p1; BBC 2009). This spillage resulted to the formation of vapour cloud of a thickness greater than 2 metres that spread into the surrounding areas. Ignition of this vapour caused an explosion that led into other subsequent explosions and eventually a fire broke out. The first explosion was of exceptionally high strength (BBC, 2006). It was audible up to about 125 miles away from its occurrence; a phenomenon that experts believed was due to an inversion layer (BBC 2005). The explosion further caused a shockwave that was recorded at 2.4 on the Richter scale (BBC 2009). The shockwave was felt as far as 28 miles away from the point of the incident (BBC 2009). There was also a huge cloud of smoke that travelled several feet high into space. Some reports indicate that the smoke was visible from as far as 70 miles away from Buncefield depot (White, n.d). The effects of the incident on land and the environment The Buncefield incident had several effects on the surrounding area, both during its occurrence and even after its occurrence. The incident caused a lot of damage to the surrounding area. First, several buildings and properties were destroyed by the explosion. The destruction included broken and blown out windows at various buildings, warped or blown in doors of buildings, and even damaged building walls. Some of the buildings that were damaged included various nearby institutions, notably schools and churches. The Townsend School, for instance, experienced considerable damages, while the Leverstock Green School, St. Albans Abbey and the Holy Trinity church had their windows either broken or blown out (British Geological Survey, n.d; Hemeltoday, 2010). Moreover, a nearby warehouse had its wall seriously damaged by the blast, while another building had its roof blown off (Hemeltoday, 2010). Structural damages to these buildings made them unstable. Several vehicles were also damaged; in fact, many vehicles that were parked near the incident caught fire. The incident had various implications to the environment. The huge cloud of smoke spreading into space was a significant air polluter. The suspended particles in the smoke were a source of irritation (Hemeltoday, 2010). The smoke also contained hydrocarbons, which have harmful effects to both humans and the environment. A survey by the Natural Environment Research Council (2005) revealed that the smoke contained some amounts of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone, and soot particles. The presence of these components in the atmosphere reduced air quality because they are harmful to the environment as well as humans. Smoke is also dangerous because it can cause suffocation to both humans and animals. Investigations into air pollution caused by the Buncefield event, nonetheless, indicated that the amount of pollutants in the air were within the expected limits and did not pose the risk of severe long term harm to the environment and humans (Hemeltoday, 2010; Health Protection Agency, 2006). However, the foam used to contain the Buncefield fire is known to have harmful effects to the environment. The elements that constituted the fighting fire foam in the Buncefield incident have negative effects to the environment. The fluorosurfactant perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) foam was used to put out the Buncefield depot fire. PFOS is toxic to the environment and has adverse effects if consumed by both animals and humans. Furthermore, this compound is bio-accumulative and persistent such that the rate of elimination by an organism from its system is lower than that of absorption. As a result, even low levels of PFOS in the environment are harmful and could cause chronic poisoning. Moreover, it can cause cancer and large amount of the chemical can cause death to both humans and other living things (McSmith, 2006). Vince (2008, p.29) has affirmed that exposing foam to the environment is hazardous and poses various risks to the environment. The huge amounts of foam used in the event translate to increased contamination of land around the incident as well as increased risk to the environment. Approximately 250 thousands litres of foam were used to contain the Bunce field fire (BBC, 2005; McSmith, 2006). Some reports on the contamination of water bodies close to the Buncefield incident confirmed the presence of the fluorosurfactant perfluorooctane sulfonate in some groundwater (Ullah, 2006). McSmith (2006) also confirms that although there was attempt to prevent spread of chemicals used in the incident from spreading into water bodies, damage to the control structures allow some pollutants seeped into water tables. Furthermore, directing the pollutants to the man-made lagoons as a control measure (McSmith, 2006) was in itself contamination of land and water, and pollution of the environment. The claim of harmful effects of foam is strengthened by the fact that authorities banned the use and supply of waters suspected to be contaminated with this chemical. Furthermore, the United Kingdom government had considered banning the use of PFOS some time prior to the incident (McSmith, 2006). It is worth to note that contamination of the land and water table could have been widespread if control measures had not been put in place. Bond (2006) has pointed out that various measures were in place to mitigate the effects of chemicals used to put out the fire in the Buncefield event. But even with control measures in place, the bio-accumulative nature of PFOS allow it to remain in the environment and could possible spread into drinking water sources. The Buncefield incident caused contamination of both land and water by depositing various metals and other harmful elements. Investigations into the effects of the incident to the environment point to the contamination of land and water by fuel-related pollutants, metals such as zinc, and hydrocarbons (Environmental Agency, 2009). Zinc is an essential element for human health, but too much of it can result to health complications. Consumption of excess zinc can result to stomach cramps, vomiting, anaemia, nausea, and skin irritation as well as pancreas damage and arteriosclerosis. In addition, persons exposed extensively to zinc chloride can develop respiratory problems. Zinc can also be harmful to foetus and newborn babies if exposed to huge concentration, and can lead generally into metal fever. Further, high concentration of zinc in the environment can harm plants, animals, and aquatic species. Furthermore, uptake by these organisms and plants can lead to more concentration of the element into the environment. For instance, when zinc is taken up by fish into its body system “it is able to bio magnify up the food chain” (Lenntech BV, 2009; Illinois Department of Public Health, n.d.). Other metals that could have been released into the environment include vanadium and nickel (Health Protection Agency, 2006). Other possible contaminations of land and water table could have come from hydrocarbons and spilled fuel. Fuel is harmful to the environment if spilled in water bodies and on land. It can cause death of various both microorganisms and aquatic animals. However, most of the fuel was burnt in the inferno and does not pose risk to the environment. Some harmful hydrocarbons may also have found their way onto the surrounding land and into water tables posing further risks. Some amounts of dioxin and fluorides were also noted as part of the environmental contaminants resulting from the incident (Health Protection Agency, 2006). The incident disrupted several significant day-to-day activities. The risk posed by smoke, possibility of further explosion and structural collapse prompted authorities to close some areas from regular use. Motorists as well as the general public were blocked from using some sections and junctions of the M1 and M10 motorways as well as some slip roads and arterial roads in Hemel Hempstead (BBC, 2005). Some schools, more so those damaged seriously or whose routes passed through the restricted areas, were closed temporary. Reports indicate that at least 70 schools were closed for at least a day due to the Buncefield incident (BBC, 2005). Some public buildings and libraries were also closed. The smoke spreading into space caused rescheduling of flights in some airports. Some planes could not land into their destined airport, while other could not take off. Many people had to abandon their homes and sought alternative accommodation far from the disaster. Other people who were only affected by smoke had to remain inside their houses with their doors and windows closed (BBC, 2005). The incident caused fear of petrol shortage to motorists who in turn resulted to panic-buying and caused congestion at petrol stations. There was also rationing of fuel at the Heathrow airport that continued for about a month; Buncefield depot was responsible for the supply of 30% of fuel used at the airport (BBC, 2005). The incident also caused some aircrafts to seek alternative sources of refuelling. The incident also caused a number of disruptions to business activities. Several companies and business enterprises were not able to reach certain facilities used for distribution purposes even where these facilities were not directly affected by the explosion (White, n.d.). Some important commercial premises such as the Fujifilm and headquarter of the Northgate Information Solutions building became unusable because they were severely damaged (White, n.d.). This event prompted the management of some of these premises to relocate to some other place with less risk. The Fujifilm building is an example of the premises that were relocated (White, n.d.). Other buildings that were damaged extensively include Keystone Distribution building, Catherine House, RO and 3Com Corporation buildings (BBC 2005). The destruction of the Northgate building included damage to various equipments used for hosting websites. Therefore, various important websites that included the Labour Party website were inaccessible to the users. In addition, the information system (IT) system of the Addenbrooke's Hospital was also affected such that its automated process of admitting and discharging patients had to be substituted with a manual system for a number of days (BBC 2005). The incident caused a lot of injuries, and necessitated evacuation of people to avoid more grave repercussions. At least 40 people suffered injuries out of the incident and some were hospitalized. Although none of the victims were in critical condition, some were seriously injured (BBC 2009). People were evacuated to avoid the effects and risks of the smoke and further explosions as well as to escape the danger of buildings that became unstable as a result of structural damages. The personnel involved in the rescue operation also developed mild respiratory complications. Rehabilitating the Buncefield site for development of residential or commercial property If a developer was to redevelop the depot site for use in setting up residential or commercial properties, it would be vital to conduct appropriate survey of the area and take mitigation measures against the contaminated land. One of the surveys that the developer would have to conduct is determination of the geological stability of the ground of the affected site. It would be important to identify if the ground would be able to support the kind of structures the developer would wish to set up. This would also include identification of possible fault lines or point of weakness on the surface that may have been caused by the Buncefield explosion. In addition, the investigation should also identify any galleys created during the explosion and destruction of systems such as the sewage and drainage systems. Furthermore, it would be useful to identify hazards that would pose various risks to the residential or commercial properties. The availability of other hazards such as the Buncefield depot should be a deterrent to the development of residential and commercial properties. Another useful study would be to investigate the level of contamination of land, water tables, and air on the site and the surrounding areas. This would include determining if there is presence of heavy metals like lead, zinc, nickel and vanadium as well as harmful hydrocarbons and particulates on land, water and in the air to help in planning on mitigation of their effects. It would also be essential to conduct an assessment of the process of developing the land to determine the impact of this process to the environmental. The rehabilitation process itself would be a source of pollution to the air because of the dust that would build up while demolishing the damaged structures and concretes. It would be crucial, therefore, to take mitigation steps to prevent further harm to the environment and to ensure that site and the developments are safe for use in their intended purpose. One of the steps that the developer should take is to provide water to the premises from sources far from the contaminated water table. It would also be beneficial to avoid construction of structures if the land was weakened extensively by the tremor. Approval and advices should be obtained from the relevant authorities and geological experts. The process of rehabilitating the land like demolishing the concrete structures should be in favourable weather to prevent spreading of the dust into space. The developer should also consider rehabilitating both land and water to reduce or eliminate the toxic substances. This could include treatment of water and physical clean up of land. It would be important to ensure the restoration of any damaged drainage and sewage systems. Key findings of the official investigation into the Buncefield incident The official investigation of the Buncefield incident revealed various key findings. It was revealed that the incident was caused by failure of control mechanisms meant to stop inflow of fuel into the storage tanks (Buncefield major incident investigation Board 2006). It was also discovered that the policy on precautionary measures that facilities such as Buncefield depot observe was inadequate. In fact, it the impact of the incident would have been less if certain mitigation and precautionary measures had been put in place. However, with the situation as it was, the incident would have caused greater impact if it had happened at a different time or if the weather was not favourable to the situation; since it was a weekend most premises were not occupied and not many people were around (Health Protection Agency, 2006). Conclusion This report has examined the Buncefield fire incident and its effects on the environment and adjacent developments. It has provided an overview of the incident and discussed the effects of the incident on the environment including water, air, and land. It has also looked at issues that would be relevant in redeveloping the destroyed land, and give a summary of the key findings of the official investigation. Reference list British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) 2005, Massive blaze rages at fuel depot. 18 January 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4517962.stm. BBC 2006, Buncefield parallels drawn abroad. 18 January 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4709666.stm. BBC 2009, Total liable for Buncefield blast. 18 January 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/7954814.stm. BBC, 2005. Can sound really travel 200 miles? 18 January 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4521232.stm. BBC, 2005. Oil blaze hits hospital systems. 18 January 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/4521608.stm. BBC, 2005. Oil fire leads to plane pitstops. 18 January 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4534014.stm. British Geological Survey. Seismic alert: Hemel Hempstead area 11 December 2005 06:01 UTC 2.4 ML. 18 January 2010. http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/recent_events/world_special/alert_info.htm. Buncefield major incident investigation Board, 2006. Buncefield major incident investigation, Health and Safety Executive, United Kingdom. 18 January 2010 http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/reports/initialreport.pdf. Environmental Agency, 2009, Buncefield fuel depot. 16 January 2010. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/pollution/water/89141.aspx Health Protection Agency, 2006. The initial review of air quality aspects of the Buncefield oil depot explosion. No. 1. 18 January 2010. http://www.airquality.co.uk/reports/cat05/0606201126_Buncefield_report_vF3_text2.pd. Health Protection Agency, 2006. The public health impact of the Buncefield oil depot fire. 20 January 2010. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947321467. Hemeltoday, 2010. Hemeltoday reports on the Buncefield Investigation reports of May 06. 19 January 2010. http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/CustomPages/CustomPage.aspx?pageID=58601. Illinois Department of Public Health. Zinc. 19 January 2010. http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/zinc.htm Lenntech BV, 2009.Chemical properties of zinc - Health effects of zinc - Environmental effects of zinc. 18 january 2010. http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/zn.htm. McSmith, A, 2006. Poisonous legacy of Buncefield fire. 16 January 2010. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/poisonous-legacy-of-buncefield-fire-476887.html. Natural Environment Research Council, 2005. Oil depot explosion. http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2005/explosion.asp. Ullah, A, 2006. The fluorochemical dilemma: what the PFOS/PFOA fuss is all about. 17 January 20101. https://www.restorationindustry.org/buyersguide/FlurochemicalsOct06.pdf. Vince, I. 2008. Major accidents to the environment: a practical guide to the Seveso II directive and COMAH regulations. Butterworth-Heinemann, United Kingdom. White, D. Buncefield: One Year Later: Historic U.K. Oil Terminal Fire Still Under Official Review. Industrial Fire World. Vol. 21. No. 6. 18 January 2010. http://www.fireworld.com/ifw_articles/hardingham.php. Read More