The Buncefield Oil Depot Explosion and Effects on the Surrounding Environment - Case Study Example

Name: xxxxxxxxxxx Course: xxxxxxxxxxx Institution: xxxxxxxxxxx Title: Construction Technology Date: xxxxxxxxxxx @ 2010 Construction technology Introduction The Buncefield oil depot explosion is considered as the largest explosion to have occurred in the United Kingdom since the Flixborough disaster in 1974. The cause of this explosion can be attributed to spills of fuel from storage tanks that eventually led to high strength fuel –air explosion. The explosion left huge stocks of refined oil product such as aviation turbine, petrol, diesel and gas oil on fire for four consecutive days. The fires produced pollutants and large plumes of particulates that could be seen through satellite images or viewed many kilometres away. It was alleged that this explosion brought about potential hazardous impacts to the air quality, the environment and the health of the public (Coleman et al 2006). This paper seeks to present and incisive and comprehensive outlook on the Buncefield oil depot explosion and its subsequent effects to the surrounding environment and developments. This report will specifically address issues revolving around the redevelopment of land in the site of the incident. General information regarding the condition of the site and constraints will be highlighted. Moreover, this paper will give detailed procedures that developers would embark on so as to redevelop the Buncefield oil depot site. Factors that will be put into account in this paper include contaminated land and environment issues. In addition, this paper will give a summary of the key findings subsequent to an official investigation. The incident and its subsequent impacts Subsequent to the Buncefield oil depot explosion, a number of inquiries were set up to investigate the cause of the disaster and to recommend measures to be put in place to avoid another disaster like the Buncefield incident. This paper incorporated the findings from the United Kingdom governmental inquiry that was conducted jointly by the Environment agency and the Health and Safety Commission. This is mainly because the findings in this data network provide a comprehensive outlook on the occurrence of the fires and the explosions of the Buncefield oil storage on December 11, 2005. Moreover, this data network provided a critical analysis on the adverse effects that the Buncefield explosion might have caused to the air quality and human health. The findings of this report sums up the events of the explosion, the actual cause of the disaster and environmental impacts of the explosion (BNA 2006). The findings of this report revealed that the Buncefield transfer depot and oil storage is generally a huge tank farm occupied by three main companies namely the Chevron Limited, Hertfordshire Oil Storage limited and the Total UK Limited. The Buncefield depot is part of the national system of petroleum refinery, storage and pipeline. The report on the December 11, 2005 incident reveals that the first explosion which was also the largest occurred near one tank which eventually caught fire and the explosions became overwhelming leading to fierce fire balls in the large storage tanks. Efforts to put out the razing fires that began from the fuel-air explosion were futile since the fire was of an unusually massive strength when measured in the Richter scale. This was the biggest explosion in the United Kingdom since the Flixborough disaster. The fire fighters had put out the fire by the afternoon of 13th December, two days later but one tank re-ignited in the evening and was ignored to burn down on its own rather than to be out (Smith & Petley 2008). The effects of the blast were manifested in broken windows of buildings, blown out or dented front doors and the moving of the strong warehouse wall for close to a mile from its original location. The flames and smoke were also visible miles away. A number of neighboring office blocks were severely hit by the explosion which could have been more deadly the incident had occurred in week day when the offices throng with people. The windows, front and back doors of these offices were blown away. Cars in nearby streets-both the parked cars and the ones in motion caught fire and buildings were evacuated owing to the dangers of recurrent explosions and the poisonous smoke plus the unstable conditions of the buildings themselves. Several injuries were also reported with a few critically injured who were rushed to hospital. Some patients experienced breathing difficulty which was apparently not too severe to cause fatality (Smith & Petley 2008). A few months after the incident, there were reports of contamination of the water. Three valley water companies admitted it had detected toxins in the water in form of the chemicals used in fire fighting which had apparently found its way into the water through an ground water bore hole near the site of the disaster. However the fears were allied since none of the contaminated water from the well entered the public water supply since a nearby well and pumping stations were closed after the incident as a precautionary measure. There was increasing concern about the soil in the disaster area which many believed was chemically contaminated. The Buncefield oil depot explosion was declared as a Major Accident to the Environment (MATTE). This is mainly due to the potential environmental impacts that the explosion might have caused (Coleman et al 2006). In the event of the explosion a number of Health Protection Agencies conducted rapid assessments on any potential health effects. Due to the location and scale of the explosion concerns were raised by the public concerning the impacts that explosion might have caused to the health of populates in the Buncefield area. The findings of the concluded assessments pointed out that there were no major health impacts or risks posed to the public as a result of the Buncefield explosion. Nevertheless, a number of reports on the aftermath of the incident allegedly indicate that the populates in the surrounding areas were exposed to certain risks. Victims attended at the Hemel Hempstead healthcare on the day of the explosion complained of sprains, cuts and respiratory issues such as shortness of breath, sore throats, asthma attacks and coughing. It was established that the explosion also exposed the public to psychological distress. Other findings verified that the level of the exposure perceived varied within the different surroundings of the incident (HPA 2006). The incident also brought about great effects to the air quality. According to the conducted air quality evaluations there was a wide spread increase of air pollution concentrations at the ground level. It was estimated that PM10 particles not less that 8, 000 tonnes were released into the air. These figures of PM10 particles are equivalent to almost 6% of the particles emissions released annually in the United Kingdom. Evidently, there were extremely high levels of emissions that caused harm to the air quality thus posing hazardous effects to the human health (Lenoir &Davenport 1993). The Buncefield oil depot explosion largely brought about economic losses, properties and business were destroyed in the explosion. Consequently, a number of people lost their jobs and means of earning their daily income. Statistics collected from the incidence revealed that more than three hundred businesses premises were damaged as a result of the explosion. The renovation of the oil depot was also a financial burden to the stakeholders. Transport was disrupted in the course of this incidence since the site of the oil depot was close to a motor way which was consequently closed. The Buncefield oil depot supplied thirty percent of the fuel in Heathrow Airport and after destruction by fire; the airport had to start rationing its fuel use. This in turn inconvenienced the transport system within the Heathrow area. Redevelopment of the Buncefield oil depot Evidently, the Buncefield oil depot explosion brought great damages that pose daunting a task as far as redevelopment is concerned. Nevertheless the redevelopment of this site is possible. The rebuilding of the damaged parts will require approval from relevant authorities such as the Dacorum Borough Council. Key considerations that should be put into account in course of redeveloping the Buncefield oil depot include the regulations from the Public Health Service (PHS). These regulations stipulate that the presence of hazardous chemicals above certain limits in a piece of land should first be evaluated by the local hazardous substance authority. In this case the local hazardous substance authority is normally the local planning authority (Webster 2006). The planning authority will act as the statutory consultant on all hazardous chemicals consent applications. Its role in the redevelopment of the Buncefield oil depot will be to assess the hazards and risks which would result from hazardous present in the oil depot vicinities. Thereafter, the planning authority will give its findings regarding the results of the evaluations carried out. Furthermore, the planning authority will decide on whether or not to approve the redevelopment of the oil depot site based on the results of the conducted evaluations. In addition the planning authority may outline the conditions that should be enforced by the hazardous substance authority. The conditions should be in line with limit risks to the public. In redeveloping the closed site, the people undertaking the exercise should ensure that the land meets the stipulated conditions in terms of pollution. If the site does not meet the stipulated limits, it will therefore be necessary to remove all the polluted firewater from the site as the first major step towards the redevelopment of the Buncefield oil depot (Lenoir &Davenport 1993). In a case whereby the results of the evaluations indicate the presence of hazardous substances, the developer will have to eliminate the contaminants that were left after the incident. It will also be crucial for them to win the confidence of the community members. Further effects of the contaminants should be averted, contaminated waters, should be treated so as to eliminate the products of fire fighting. The Elimination of the fuel products from the water deposits will require the use of fuel filters that will extract the fuel products from the water source. Compared to the treatment of surface waters the treatment of underground water is more difficult. This process involves the treatment of the water in the aquifers thus requiring the elimination of all the present waters, this process is inherently risky and can lead to permanent water loss. Aquifers are the water bearing rocks in the underground. Alternatively, the treatment of surface waters will require a recycling process that is fitted with fuel filters. An outlet will be created in the contaminated water body along which the fuel filters will be fitted to collect together the fuel products. Subsequent to these procedures the groundwater and the surface water should also be evaluated so as to ensure that there are no harmful pollutants present. This evaluation is aimed at checking whether the contamination level exceeds the stipulated amounts by the regulatory bodies. Re-development procedures are thus aimed at ensuring that the land is suitable for sustaining any other economic activity or for habitations. This can only be done after ascertaining that the site is free of any contamination that can affect human life. The pollution can also be reduced to insignificant levels that can not affect human life. Building and safety standards must be upheld in the process of redeveloping the Buncefield oil depot. These regulations must be upheld so as to ensure that there is no likelihood of future risks associated with the incident. The surroundings of site also should not be congested with buildings in case another explosion occurs. Soil contaminated with the fuels and hydrocarbons require mitigation measures. The soils should be oxidized so as to breakdown the carboxyl particles in their compound form. The soil sample is first taken to the laboratory for testing and experimentation on the oxidation process. It is apparent that the redevelopment of the Buncefield oil deposit site will be very expensive since the sites must be treated first before any construction is carried out. Summary of key findings subsequent to an official investigation The Major Incident Investigation Board (MIIB) and a number of health protection agencies provided the required specifications in regard to risk assessments so as to prevent incidences such as the Buncefield oil depot explosion from occurring again. A key lesson learnt from this explosion was that there is need for advanced and intense measurement capabilities that address the potential impacts of such explosion to the air quality, the environment and the health of the public. It is apparent that the Buncefield explosion was a major emergency that had mere health impacts however the explosion might have brought severe impacts to the environment and the air quality (Smith & Petley 2008). According to the Major Incident Investigation Board (MIIB) there exist three work streams that clearly portray the lessons that can be learnt from the Buncefield incident. These work streams include the operation and design of oil storage sites, emergency response to incidences and recommendations to the planning authorities. In order to avert incidences such as the Buncefield explosion from occurring in future there is need to identify more safety measures so as to ensure that fuel spills from storage tanks do not occur. Moreover, mechanisms of dealing with fuel spills should be devised so as to prevent the spilt fuel from forming a flammable vapor and poisonous air and environment pollutants. It is therefore recommended as a preventive measure that the fuel industry should assess and advance its safety measures in regard to handling great quantities of fuel and imposing safety measures to its storage sites. Safety standards should be upheld in the operating oil storage sites and fuel distribution channels. The design of oil storage sites should also adhere to safety standards so as to prevent oil spills from storage tanks and avert incidences such as the Buncefield explosion from occurring in future (Smith & Petley 2008). As a result of the Buncefield incident invaluable lessons were learn on the appropriate emergency responses to such incidences. Evidently, the response from the health protection agencies was rapid and commendable in the event of the explosion. Nevertheless, technical and operational advancements are necessary so as to heighten the effectiveness of emergency responses during such incidences. Technically, organizations involved in emergency responses should be equipped with appropriate tools of risk assessments and addressing the various manifestations of tragedy. On the other hand, the staff in organizations involved in emergency responses should receive optimum training in emergency responses to incidences. Moreover, the staff should be trained on how to handle victims of oil explosions in a manner that enhances their safety and recuperation (Webster 2006). The control and management of major tragedies and accidents are jointly enforced by a number of competent authorities such as the Environment agency and the Health protective agencies. These agencies play an imperative role in ensuring that the implemented emergency responses are effective in addressing issues emerging from incidences. It is therefore necessary for these authorities to uphold apposite policies in regard to the control and management of major tragedies and accidents. Conclusion The redevelopment of the Buncefield oil depot is daunting task that will require certain precautions to be put into account so as to avoid such incidences from occurring in future. Key among the factors that should be put into account include the alignment of redevelopment strategies with the regulations from the Public Health Service (PHS). These regulations require the elimination of contaminants within the vicinities of the oil depot. In order to avert incidences such as the Buncefield explosion from occurring in future safety standards should be upheld in reconstruction of the oil storage sites and fuel distribution channels (HPA 2006). Bibliography Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), 2006, International environment reporter: Current report, Volume 29, Bureau of National Affairs Press, UK. Coleman, P, et al, 2006, Initial review of air quality aspects of the Buncefield Oil Depot explosion, Retrieved on January 18, 2010, Health protection agency (HPA), 2006, The Public Health Impact of the Buncefield Oil Depot Fire. Retrieved on January 18, 2010, Smith, K & Petley, D, 2008, Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster, Taylor & Francis Publishers, UK. Lenoir, M &Davenport, A, 1993, A survey of Vapor Cloud Explosions: Second Update Process Safety Progress, Journal of chemical sciences, 12 (1) 1232. Webster, H, 2006, Dispersion modelling studies of the Buncefield Oil Depot incident, Met Office Press, Freeport. Read More