Comparative Post Disaster - Essay Example

Comparative Post Disaster Report Introduction 3 Buncefield Explosion 3 Mitigation Measures 5 Disaster Preparedness 6 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact a Comparative Study 6 Conclusion 10 References 11 Introduction Disasters although are not the norm and the usual occurrence but they are very much part of our lives. The degree and types of disasters vary. Some are natural disasters which cannot be avoided but some only occur due to our mistakes and can be avoided. Disaster is a phenomenon that can be natural or man-made and can be disastrous especially if no preventive measures are taken. Disaster management is the strategy and methodology employed when any catastrophe or disaster takes place. This disaster recovery process can be initiated when anything threatens to disrupt the normal course of events and the human life is at stake. Governments at different levels and even some businesses develop their disaster management plan to overcome any disastrous event and resume routine work. This paper aims at presenting a case study report based on Buncefield explosions and fire of 2005. It will identify and recommend the mitigation measures that can be taken by government and the businesses to reduce the occurrence of such events. It will also identify and recommend the measures that can better equip and prepare the government and the businesses to deal with disasters. Lastly it will analyze the disaster management of this event and compare it with other petrochemical disaster in a less economically developed country namely the Bhopal disaster in India. Buncefield Explosion On 11th Dec 2005 there were explosions measuring 2.4 on Richter scale, in the oil storage depot of Buncefield, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. The first explosion was massive accompanied by a large fire that engulfed a high proportion of the site. Although there were no fatalities but 40 people got injured. Damage was not only restricted to the oil depot but many neighboring residential and commercial buildings were damaged. The fire and the emitting black clouds could be seen for several days (Braintree, 2010). It was Britain’s most costly industrial disaster. St. Alban’s Crown Court gave its verdict in July 2010 and five companies after being found guilty were fined £ 9.5 million. The court observed that the incident was not the result of the cost cutting measures but slackness, inefficiency and complacency for safety measures was the major cause. According to a report published in Feb 2011 fundamental safety flaws were the cause of the disaster. There were two types of control levels for tank filling; one was a gauge and the other an independent high level switch (IHLS). Gauge had some problems of reliability since its service in 2005 and the management failed to respond to it. It got stuck on the fateful night. IHLS needed a padlock to keep the lever in working condition and the absence of it made it inoperable. In the absence of these two primary checks reliance was on secondary containment through retaining walls and tertiary containment, a system of drain and catchment areas. Both forms of containment failed, as they were inadequately designed and maintained (COMAH, 2010). The Buncefield Incident Human and Financial Costs Initial fine 9.6 Million dollars Subsequent Claims 1.2 Billion dollars Loss of Business Loss of Operation Loss of Reputation >0.4 Billion dollars Human Loss Total loss 42 serious injuries (2 operators and 40 public) >1.6 Billion dollars Source: Dr. Jonathan Mark Bunch, Design Safety Consultant, Costain energy and process Mitigation Measures Weaknesses in chemical storage tanks are a cause of potential threats both economical and environmental. There are many mitigation measures that can be taken to reduce the failure rate by government, oil installation and pipeline operators. First is in the modeling technique of storage tanks. The data has proved that minor changes in the primary design of the storage vessel can reduce losses in the event of catastrophic failure. Modifications in the bund wall also can enhance performance. When these two methods are combined it will cost the company minor investment but can significantly reduce potential losses (Ash, 2008). Most of the fuel storage tanks in the UK are built in 1950’s and 60’s and hence are inappropriate for the containment standards of today and are not in alignment with the current safety and environmental standards. Operators should reassess their secondary and tertiary standards of containment. They should also identify the pathways where liquids may be released and mitigation measures can be taken to reduce the subsequent impact. COMAH the competent authority should also develop standards about containment policy that must be met by both new and established operators. The requirement by COMAH to prepare a major accident prevention policy (MAPP) should be strictly implemented (IChemE, 2008). At the strategic level of management, safety should be given importance. It can play an active role as deterrent, and make managers behave responsibly. It can also force entrepreneurs to consider safety, and allocate resources for safety measures and organize a responsible approach for proper risk assessment and mitigation (Dale, 2009). Disaster Preparedness It is recommended that instead of following the reactive strategy of disaster management organizations and governments should strive for a proactive strategy of disaster preparedness and planning. It not only help minimize the loss but reducing the uncertainty element and it is also beneficial economically, socially and environmentally (Smith, 2008). Civil Contingencies act provide an important legislative act for emergency preparedness. However incidents like Buncefield make it clear that respondent needs further guidance to minimize loss. Gaps between emergency response and recovery activities must be analyzed. NGO’s and municipal corporations can also help in the recovery process more efficiently if they are to better prepare to deal with such issues. Disaster preparedness include development of recovery structure and processes, training and exercises, a log of lessons learnt, training of recovery personnel on essential roles, responsibilities, designing recovery exercises etc. NGO’s, organizations, municipalities, governments all should work together in disaster preparedness because loss in such incidents is not restricted to a single organization but it is a national loss, economically, socially and environmentally (Aloise, 2010). Social, Economic and Environmental Impact a Comparative Study There are great potential economic and environmental threats in chemical storage of any kind. According to a study on storage tank accidents, in the ten largest incidents in the period of 1963-2002, the total loss is equivalent to $ 1204, 000,000. These are only the economic losses; environmental impact of such incidents is of equal significance. The major environmental issues resulting from such incidents are potential contamination of watercourses and hence disruption of water supply. According to an estimate in the Buncefield incident almost 800,000 liters of contaminated water leaked into a tributary of the Thames (Mannan, 2005). Incidents like the Buncefield are extremely rare and it was the most costly industrial incident in UK. Society demands the highest of standards from the high hazard industries. The consequences of such events are very strong and can shatter lives in local communities. The environmental impact of such disaster is most far reaching and such impacts of disaster are still present today. The economic impact of the incident came in the form of varying penalties imposed on the five companies Total UK, British pipeline Agency, Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd. TAV Engineering Ltd. and Motherwell control system amounting to £ 9.5 million. The environmental impact was in the form of polluted water. The blast has shattered the local community and has left a long legacy of pollution for many years to come. Environmental agencies and the oil companies have developed a five year cleanup program. This disaster has caused environmental hazards for the future generations to come. Social impact to some extent was minimized with the strict penalization policy and action taken by the government against everyone found guilty in the incident (Davies, 2011). Although the Buncefield disaster has its economic, social and environmental consequences but if we compare it with the disaster of Bhopal, India there is no comparison of the magnitude of consequences of the two incidents. This disaster in Bhopal happened in December 1984 when 40 tons of methyl isocyanate gas leaked from a pesticide plant that immediately killed 3,800 people besides significant morbidity and premature death for many thousand people. The death toll in Buncefire was none. In Bhopal disaster the company involved in this worst industrial disaster, Union Carbide Corporations, accepted moral responsibility only after the intervention of Supreme Court and the Indian government. The company was penalized with a relatively small amount of $ 470 million as compared to the consequences of this incident. The incident has long term social and environmental consequences. There were long term health consequences due to toxic exposure and a large number of people were exposed. Social consequences were also far reaching. The need for enforcing international environment safety standards was felt. It was also felt that preventive strategies should be taken to avoid such disasters and the organizations and governments should also work for disaster preparedness (Broughton, 2005). Consequences of the Bhopal disaster has been far reaching especially related to health and environmental pollution. Pulmonary diseases especially, have to be evaluated after sometime of inhalation to actually judge the damage caused by toxic inhalation. The most common problem related with toxic inhalation is called reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS) Complete recovery is quite rare in patients who has suffered from acute toxic inhalation. Same consequences were observed after the Bhopal disaster. Apart from high death toll there were several people who had to suffer from various pulmonary diseases all their lives If we compare the disaster of Bhopal with Buncefield disaster there is marked difference in the medium and long term economic, social and environmental consequences. It is in contrast with the Buncefeul disaster where mitigation effects were although not very appreciable still death toll was none and the number of injuries was restricted to only 44 people. In Buncefield disaster although water was contaminated and resulted in great environmental pollution but government was quick in evacuating the nearby area and minimizing the impact. Five year plan of cleaning was developed and the cleaning process can still be observed to avoid any long term health hazards. Bhopal disaster resulted in deaths and lifelong health problems due to toxic inhalation. Source: http:// news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images The comparison of the social impact of the two disasters reveals the same result. After the incident of Buncefield mitigation efforts were made. Certain laws were made to ensure safety and reducing chances of occurrence of such events in the future. Companies involved were not only heavily penalized but were also ordered to upgrade their safety levels. Certain levels and rules regarding containment policy were designed and implemented in UK. The social impact of such legislation and litigation had been positive and further ensured safety. In Bhopal incident the company involved quite late accepted the moral responsibility of the incident and only after the intervention of the court. The penalty was not enough as compared to the magnitude of the disaster. No legislation was made to raise safety standards so that such incidents can be avoided in future. No legislation was made either for mitigation of consequences and to improve emergency preparedness. The Bhopal’s chemical disaster has elements of acute epidemiology, industrial hygiene, toxicology, environmental pollution and planning, deficiency in disaster preparedness and management. It has some lessons to learn regarding health economics, medical ethics and environmental protection laws etc. Conclusion From the study of the two incidents one in UK the Buncefield disaster and the other in India, the Bhopal incident, it is revealed that the magnitude of the consequences of the two events are entirely different. The magnitude of the consequences was minimized in UK due to efforts of the government, municipalities and the NGO’s. Both incidents were the result of the irresponsible behavior of the companies but the post disaster management in UK was much better in UK as compared to India. Active involvement of government of UK in mitigation efforts and emergency preparedness not only helped in reducing the chances of occurrence of such incidents but also helped in reducing the consequences also. In India the irresponsible behavior of the company and the government increased the magnitude of the incident not only in the short run but also in the long term. India has to work a lot in emergency preparedness in case of disasters and the mitigation efforts. References Aloise, G. (2010) Comabting Nuclear Terrorism, USA: Diane Publishing Ash, John W. (2008) The Modeling of Tank Failures, Current Date and the Development of Mitigation Measures, Liverpool John Moores University, Pg 100-106 Broughton E. (2005) The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review, Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source COMAH (2010) Buncefield: Why did it happen? http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/buncefield/buncefield-report, Date accessed 15/6/2011 Davies, A. (2011) Workplace Law Handbook 2011, Health and safety, Premises and environment, Cambridge: Workplace Law Group Dale, C., Anderson, T. (2009) Safety-critical systems: Problems, processes, and practices, London: Springer -Verlag IChemE (2008) Hazards XX: process Safety and Environmental protection: harnessing Knowledge- Challenging Complacency, UK: Institute of chemical engineers. Mannan, S., Lees, Frank P. (2005) Lee’s loss prevention in the process industries, UK: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann Rt. Hon Lord Newton of Braintree, (2010) Buncefield Investigation, http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/index.htm, Date accessed 15/6/2011 Smith, K., Petley, David N., (2008) Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster, NewYork: Routledge Read More