1.0 Introduction
On 11th December, 2005 a series of explosions occurred at Buncefield oil storage depot leading to massive losses in both commercial and residential property therefore this report addresses the case study of Buncefield; it also explains and gives reasons for the mitigation measures I recommend that the public and private sector organizations can employ to avoid a re-occurrence of such an incident. Some of the measures are: control and safety systems for petroleum storage, land use planning and control of societal risks around major hazard site, protection against loss of containment and also constant review on the maintenance and replacement policy amongst other measures. In addition the report will give reasons and explore disaster preparedness measures that I recommend for both the private and the public sector. Finally the report will Contrast the medium to long-term social, economic and environmental impact of the Buncefield Disaster with the impact of the Sinai Fire Disaster that occurred in Kenya.
2.0 Mitigation measures
Mitigation refers to continuous effort to lessen the impact a disaster would have on people and property.
2.1 Control and safety systems for petroleum storage tanks
Assessment should be done on the petrol storage tanks on the safety integrity level for overfill prevention systems. Relevant and constant maintenance should also be consistently done to ensure the tanks are in good condition at all times. A common methodology to determine the safety Integrity levels the requirements for over-fill conditions should also be developed. Looking back the Buncefield disaster was as a result of hitch on the storage tanks and therefore safety systems for storage systems should be given a lot of attention.
2.2 Land Use Planning and Control of societal risks around major hazard sites
According to ,The planning history of Buncefield was inappropriate both commercial and residential areas are built in close proximity outside the storage tanks and this contributed to the high number of losses experienced; therefore, planning around major hazard sites is inevitable. The rationale of the land use planning system is to manage the uses to which land in the immediate environs of main danger sites can be put and to be quick to respond to changes in risk presented by such sites.
The plan should be more incorporated and portray a lot of reliability and the site operator should play a much larger part in informing the planning authorities of the major hazards threat and their organize measures; where relevant stakeholders such as the emergency responders have an input; and where the planning authority takes a clear and expert lead in the decision making process. The plan should also be inclusive of an onsite and an offsite emergency response and also an evacuation plan. The plan should also have a very elaborate fire fighting department. Essential tools of decision making like Quantified risk assessment should be an integral part of the plan to ensure the plan is comprehensive.
Some of the benefits associated with crafting a comprehensive plan are: including new technologies can minimize the vulnerability of the surrounding population and also the fact that it is easy to quantify the foreseen risk which assists in measures of crafting for prevention and mitigation measures.
2.3 protections against loss of containment of petrol
This can be done by fitting a high profile automatic operating overfill prevention systems it should be separate both physically and electrically from the tank gauging system. The independence is owing to the fact that this would improve efficiency and also reduce risks involved e.g. electric faults which can cause massive losses. In addition the efficacy and reliability if the overfill prevention systems should be consistently checked to ensure that the system is in good order at all times.
2.4 Maintenance and replacement Policy
The management of Buncefield should craft a and replacement policy to ensure all the equipments e.g. the pipes are in good shape at all times to reduce the risks involved in using out of order equipments. These include processes like: methodology for periodic check up for over fill prevention systems to ensure that there are no failures that may consequently lead to loss of containment of petrol. In addition during replacement the systems should ensure that the process doesn’t affect the efficiency of the systems and also they should ensure that they always audit the facility to ensure the equipments being used are high efficient equipments.
2.5 Ensure that the receiving site has control over tank filling
The receiving site should be able to terminate or divert a transfer safely to mainly prevent loss of containment. However, this arrangement should put into consideration the impact the arrangement would have upstream on the pipeline network and also on the refinery. This arrangement can save the management some of the challenges like: a site depending on the actions of a remote third party or communication to these remote sites, in essence this arrangement solves all the communication issues and delays that may result into a hazard.
2.6 Constant Audits on the transmission system
Buncefield management should comply with all authorities and laws on safety mostly on the level of adequacy of existing safety arrangements including communication, disaster preparedness. This is to ensure that any time the management has an action plan in case of a disaster. These would consequently minimize the impact of a disaster.
2.7 develop improved components and systems
The management of Buncefield in conjunction with its suppliers and manufacturers for equipments should consistently explore ways of improving the existing components. These should investigate issues like coming up with high level detection for overfill detection equipment that are not internal in the system also exploring ways of increasing dependability of tank level gauging that have validate measurements, systems that can warn of faults and are correctly calibrated. This would help reducing the chances of risks owing to undetected faults in the systems.
3.0 Disaster Preparedness Measures
It is essential for the management of Buncefield to develop disaster preparedness plan to cater for any emergence of a disaster .the petroleum industry is sensitive and very prone to hazards and therefore it is essential for the industry to be prepare for any eventuality. The disaster preparedness and management process should include the leadership team including the board members. The following are some of the methods the petroleum company can prepare for a disaster:
3.1 Public education, training and rehearsal
Buncefield should involve the people living in the environs on some safety tips and also ways of handing a disaster. This would ensure that incase there is a disaster the people would know how t handle it instead of panicking and causing further damage.All employees should be trained thoroughly on safety and evacuation methods in case of an emergency. Every employee should know where the emergence exits are and the fire extinguishers this would reduce the number of casualties in case of an accident.
3.2 Resource Mobilization
It is essential for Buncefield to mobilize all necessary resources that may handle an emergency. The fire at Buncefield burnt for five days and according to the fire fighters at Buncefield were inadequate to deal with the disaster and therefore, it is essential that money and personnel to deal with an emergency are identified.
3.3 Response Mechanisms and Strategies
Buncefield should identify the response mechanism in case of an emergency this would help the people around to deal with the problem systematically according to the strategies laid down and therefore reduce on the time the fire is burning and consequently the damage it causes.
3.4 Early Warning signs and coordination
For Buncefield they had insufficient systems for managing the filling of industrial tanks of petrol and therefore they could not detect he pressure subdued on the people receiving and storing the petrol. It is therefore necessary for them to put up efficient systems that can detect an upcoming problem. This would really help in salvaging the situation and also coordinating the disaster management.
4.0 Contrast of the medium to long term Impact of Buncefield Disasters and Sinai Fire in Kenya
Before I analyze the long term impact it is essential to note a few aspects about the two disasters: The Sinai Fire killed 120 in a period of hours whereas the Buncefield fire burned for five days and only forty people were injured.
4.1 Contrasts on Social Impact
According to The Sinai fire killed 120 people amongst them were parents and main family breadwinners; therefore, the people who lost their family members were affected emotionally. This effect may impact on behavior and the fact that it is a poverty stricken slum area worsens the situation. A lot of people were also left homeless increase the margin of homeless individuals in the country who might probably run to the street. The incident polluted the environment particularly Fauna and Flora and also the Ngong River. The incident happened at Lunga lunga Industrial area and it affected business because most unskilled employees in the factories at Industrial area were victims and this destabilized the normal undertakings for a while.(see appendix 1-4)
On the other hand the Buncefield did not register any deaths and therefore the impacts associated with loss of family members will not be experienced. A hundred of homes in Hemel Hempstead were evacuated and more than 2000 people had to be resettled. There was also a concern for public safety which resulted to 227 schools being closed this consequently resulted to loss of business in schools near Buncefield. The incident occurred close to a junction resulting to a shut of the motor way between junction 12 and 6a and also there was shortage of fuel for months after e incident. (See Appendix 5-9)
4.2 Economic Impact
In Sinai the loss experienced is basically, for residential property and the value was not a lot but for Buncefield the loss was magnificent and it involved both commercial and residential property and the value of the property was a bit high and also the commercial property destroyed means that the businesses made hefty losses and ended up being closed for some time. Business was badly disrupted in Maryland Industrial area mostly the Fujifilm and the North Gate Information systems which were rendered totally un-useful. Ground water was also reported 5 months later.
5.0 Conclusion
This report addressed The Buncefield disaster which was as a result of Major safety management failings. It therefore recommends some mitigation measures like: control and safety systems for petroleum storage, land use planning and control of societal risks around major hazard site, protection against loss of containment and also constant review on the maintenance and replacement policy amongst other measures. It also explored four disasters prepared measures and the contrast between the long term impact of the Buncefield disaster and the Sinai fire in Kenya.
References
Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board. 2006, February 26. The Buncefield Fire. Accessed from The Buncefield Investigation and Recommendations: Retrieved from http://www.buncefieldrecommendations.co.uk/recommendations.asp#_Buncefield_Report_Recommendation
al, W. B. 2004. At Risk:Natural Hazards, people's vulnerability and Disasters. London: Routledge.
Alexander, D. 2002. Principles of Emergency planning and Management. Harpenden: Terra Harpenden.
Buncefield Standards Task Group. 2005. Safety and Environmental Standards for fuel storage site. Buncefield: Routledge.
D.P, C. 2007. Intoduction to international Disaster Management. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Government of UK. 2005. CONTROL OF MAJOR ACCIDENT HAZARDS DIRECTIVE. London: UK Government publisher. Accessed from http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/reports/rep080306.pdf
Gupta, H. K. 2003. Disaster Management. Carlifonia: Universities Press.
Havrilesky, H. 2011. Disaster Preparedness. Chicago: Penguin Group USA.
international Federation of Redcross and Redcresent societies. 2000. Introduction to disaster preparedness. London: Routledge.
J, R. 2008. The Human Contribution: Unsafe Acts, Accidents and Heroic Recoveries. Surrey: Ashgate.
Kletz, T. 2009. What went wrong: Case histories of process plant disasters and HoW they could have been avoided. Heinemann: Butterworth.
Lewis, J. 2003. Development in Disaster-Prone Places . Denver: Technology Publications.
Mars Group Kenya. 2012, March 16. Kenya Pipeline Company-Sinai Fire Disaster. Accessed from Mars Group Blog: http://blog.marsgroupkenya.org/?p=2843
National Crime Prevention Council. 2001. Tips on Disaster Preparedness. Acessed from National Crime Prevention Council: http://www.ncpc.org/topics/preparedness/tips-on-disaster-preparedness
Pelling, M. 2003. The vulnerability of cities: Natural Disaster and Social Resilience. Routledge: Earthscan.
Perrow, C. 1999. Normal Accidents:iving with High Risk Technologies. Woodstock: Princeton University Press.
Sahni, P., Dhameja, A., & Medury, U. 2004. Disaster Mitigation: Experiences and Reflections. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Schneid, T. D., & Collins, L. (2001). Disaster Management and Preparedness. Missouri: Lewis Publishers.
Sharpe, J. L., & Association, N. C. (1982). Disaster preparedness: a guide for developing a plan to cope with disaster for the public and private. Duke: Duke University Library.
Singh, S. K., & Singh, S. (1998). Disaster Management. Delhi: Mittal Publications.
Sinha, P. C. (2006). Disaster, Vulnerabilities And Risks - Trends, Concepts, Classifications & Approaches. Delhi: Sbs Publishers & Distributors.
Sinha, P. C. (2007). Disaster Mitigation, Preparedness, Recovery And Response. Delhi: SBS Publishers & Distributors.
Smith, K. (4th Edition). Environmental Hazards. London: Routledge.
Sundar, I., & T.Sezhiyan, I. (2007). Disaster Management. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons.
Toft, B. (2005). Learning from Disasters: A management Approach. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
UK Government. (1999). Environmental sampling after chemical a chemical Accident. London: UK GOVERNMENT DEFRA.
Appendix: 1- Appendix: 2- loss of lives at Sinai
Appendix 3: River Ngong pollution Appendix 4: Loss of homes at Sinai
Appendix 5: Buncefield Appendix 6: Buncefield fire Appendix 7: Buncefied storage where the fire started. Appendix 8: Areas affected by smoke
Appendix 9: Buncefield fire 5 days on
