DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Stephen Megos

Professor Gary Halada

ESG 201: Learning from Disasters

12 May 3, 2015

 

Chemical Plant Explosion in Igualada, Spain

 

            In the news headlines, it is mostly titled “Giant Toxic Cloud Hangs over Spanish Town”, or maybe even “Toxic Orange Cloud Outside Barcelona after Chemical Blast,” nevertheless, the headlines always seem to have the same idea in common which (revels) around the words “Toxic Cloud” or “Orange Cloud.” That is exactly what the effect of the aftermath left after the Chemical Plant Explosion that occurred in Igualada, Spain early on this year.

            The event took place on February 12th, 2015. And as stated in the title in the beginning of this paper, this explosion took place in Igualada, Spain. Igualada is about 30 miles north of the city of Barcelona with a population of about 39,000 people. Although, it was not the only city affected by this catastrophic disaster, it is the location of where the explosion took place and it is also the place that was probably affected the most and whose people had to suffer the most due to the fact that the factory is located in the town.

            The explosion, according to my research and sources of information found in the news articles, occurred when a truck was doing a delivery of chemicals to a chemical plant site. Whilst the chemicals were being delivered to a chemical plant facility, owned by SIMAR, a chemical distribution company, the chemicals got mixed up in the process and caused a huge explosion which resulted in the formation of an orange toxic cloud, which did not only cover Igualada, but also four other towns in the process.

            Of course this happens because the chemicals were corrosive. The chemicals that were involved was Nitric Acid and Ferric Chloride, which is very much corrosive and toxic in this case. The explosion also set the truck that was carrying the chemicals on fire. And because of that, three people were hospitalized in the area and at the time of the incident, their conditions were unknown. But since it has been a while, and there have been no news report on their well-being, one can only assume that those injured were not in critical condition and thus are in good health at this time. Which makes me come to the conclusion that there were no deaths involved in the accident.

            The fact that there was no death involved, and of course this is only a speculation, does not mean that this disaster is not as equally as important as other disasters. The reason for it to be described as a disaster is because it endangered the lives of many people as well as the environment. Because the fact of the matter is, 60,000 people in Igualada and this also include numbers of people in the neighboring towns, were forced to stay inside of their homes for hours before being relieved so that the authorities would be able to get the situation under control. These measures had to be taken because the risks of being outdoors were too great for some people as the clouds were not dissipating because “unfortunately there isn’t much wind in the area so the toxic cloud is taking longer to disperse,” stated Ramon Espadelar of the Catalan Interior Ministry.

            In the case of risk assessments and failures, this catastrophe, in my opinion at least or from what I have learned in class, more or less likely occurred because of human error. Human error/factors, in the case of causes of engineering failure, may include ethical failures, inadequate or poorly conducted maintenance and operation, and finally accidents. The story is that the disaster occurred when two chemicals were being moved from the trucks to the chemical plant factory. This means that the chemicals were being moved by people and although they were careful, they were not careful enough to consider the dangers of putting two highly corrosive chemicals next to one another. This, of course, is an example of “Normalization of Deviance.” The theory for normalization of deviance is often defined as “The gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable. As the deviant behavior is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm for the organization.” In theory, the company might have been transporting their chemicals in this same manner before the incidence. And since nothing had happened before then, it had become the standard model of transporting the products. But this is one of the ways that things can go wrong and failure might be more likely to occur, and in this case it did. Overall, this situational event perfectly fit the factors of human error.

According to what I learned in class, an engineering failure is considered to be an engineering disaster based on the public’s perception of risk. Moreover, there is a higher degree of perceived risk when two reasons stem from the situation. These two situational reasons are: 1) The loss of life resulting from the accident, and 2) The public’s lack of control over their environment, to a lesser degree, in an accident. Therefore, this incident is considered an engineering disaster because although it does not fit the two reasons completely, it is somehow incorporated in there. The situation fits into reason number one because people were injured and others were forced to stay inside of their homes. This disaster fits reason number two because people were forced to stay in their homes because of the toxic air and authorities did not know what dangers it might posed to individuals if they were to remain outside. Thus, they did not have much control over their environment due to the occurrence of the incident.

 Although this incident did not cause a lot of people to get hurt, it also does not mean that SIMAR and other authorities should not take precautions next time so that something as such does not occur once more. Because the fact of the matter is there are a whole town of people who live by the chemical plant warehouse. And their safety should be of utmost concern. Toxic chemicals lurking around the air can cause various health problems and I think it is the company’s responsibility to take the lives of the citizens into account when handling their products.

 

            Before the probable causes of the explosion can be determined, the chemicals involved must first be described. The chemicals identified from the aftermath of the explosion were ferric chloride, dinitrogen tetroxide and nitric acid. (Smith). Ferric chloride is a compound used in the treatment of sewage, industrial waste and drinking water. It’s also used to manufacture plastics, circuit boards and rocket propellants. It forms a corrosive, acidic solution when dissolved in water. Plus, it’s highly corrosive to most metals. When surrounded with moist airs, ferric chloride forms mists of gaseous hydrogen chloride, a toxic acid. It is fairly toxic to animals and humans. However, when it’s subjected with biodegradation, the products formed are more toxic than the compound itself. (Cameo Chemicals)

Dinitrogen tetroxide is a compound commonly used as a rocket propellant. It spontaneously ignites when mixed with other propellants and can accelerate the combustion of other materials. It corrodes many metals in the presence of water. Along with that, it is highly volatile and vaporizes readily to form highly poisonous brown vapors of nitrogen dioxide. (IPCS) Inhalation of concentrated fumes can cause headaches, nausea, chest & abdomen pain and accumulation of fluid in the lungs. It’s a strong oxidizing agent that reacts with water to form nitric acid and nitric oxide, two other poisonous compounds. (Cameo Chemicals)

Nitric acid is a highly toxic acid used in the production of explosives, fertilizers, dyes, certain drugs and plastics. Like dinitrogen tetroxide, it can accelerate the burning of combustible materials and can even serve as a source of ignition. Nitric acid is a strong oxidizing agent that oxidizes numerous compounds and ignites upon contact with them. It also reacts with water and air to produce toxic, flammable vapors and heat. (ChemicalBook) Highly concentrated nitric acid solutions, known as red or white fuming nitric acid, are used as rocket propellants. Adding to that, it’s highly corrosive. Nitric acid causes severe burns when it comes into contact with skin and tissues. (Chemicalland21.com)

Moving along, each of these compounds possess unique physical and chemical properties and a specific reactivity. Due to this, they need to be stored and transported in specially designed containers which take these properties into account. For instance, dinitrogen tetroxide is usually transported in pressurized stainless steel containers with a stainless steel valve and valve seat. (EADS Astrium) The valve openings also have to be sealed with a metal plug and tapered thread to prevent leakage and reactions with water or air.  Since the compound can corrode steel, the valve and valve seat need to have coatings resistant to N2O4 corrosion. (Legal Information Institute) Ferric chloride is also highly corrosive to steel and several other metals. Due to this, it has to be stored and transported in either plastics, ceramics or rubber lined metal containers. (DCW Limited) The point here is that special measures have to be taken in order to store or transport these compounds. Doing so ensures that they are moved around safely without exposure or endangering anyone.

Based on such facts, the explosion could have resulted from materials failure involving the containers. The company may have used improper containers to transport the compounds. By this, I mean that the containers used during the operation may not have been designed to handle and withstand each chemical’s specific properties. Since such containers wouldn’t be properly designed to handle these compounds, they may have been leaking material. Ferric chloride, dinitrogen tetroxide and nitric acid are all highly reactive with water and air so any leakage could result in negative consequences. During the delivery, the workers may have been unaware of any potential leakage from the containers. If there was leakage, it could have inadvertently brought the compounds together and caused them to come into contact with each other. This could have fueled the reaction that generated the explosion.

Another potential cause for the explosion may have arose from the pumps used in the loading/unloading operation. Due to the high toxicity and volatility of these compounds, certain pumps have to be used to relocate them to different containers. For highly concentrated nitric acid, stainless steel reciprocating and centrifugal pumps are commonly used for its bulk transport. (Sugur 336) Perhaps, something went wrong with the pumps used in the delivery. They could have broken and spilled the liquefied compounds over the delivery area. The pumps could also have been leaking fumes or liquid during their operation that could have violently reacted with air. This could have occurred if the workers were using old pumps during the operation. After all, the older something gets, the more likely it is to break down.

Moving forward, human error is a likely cause of the explosion, as well. However, this still leaves open a wide range of possible scenarios that may have caused the explosion. One potential scenario is that workers at the plant may have simply mishandled the transport containers during the loading/unloading operation. They could have accidently damaged or broken the valves used to seal the containers, thus spilling or leaking the chemicals over the delivery area. This may have brought them into contact with each other.

Another scenario is that the workers could have forgotten to prime the pumps before the delivery. Priming is a required preparation process where equipment is cleaned with small amounts of the liquid chemical that it comes into contact with during daily uses. This method prevents the chemical from becoming contaminated with any chemical residue left in the equipment from previous operations while also lowering the chance of a violent reaction occurring when dealing with highly reactive compounds. (Engineers Edge, LLC) Two of the identified compounds from the explosion, nitric acid and dinitrogen tetroxide, are highly reactive. If the workers failed to prime the pumps and other equipment used to transfer the compounds, there could have been chemical residue left in them. It could have violently reacted with the compounds in the pumps while they were being transferred and potentially generated the explosion.

There could be an underlying organizational failure, as well. It’s a general principle for many chemical manufacturing & distributing companies to have employees undergo unloading operations under the careful supervision of a trained operator. This helps ensure that proper operational protocol is followed. (Solvay Chemicals International) What if an operator wasn’t present at the time of the unloading/loading operation at the plant? If so, then no one may have been present at the delivery site to oversee the operation and ensure that nothing broke or was damaged. Something could have gone wrong and the operator wasn’t there to stop it before it got out of control. Also, even if an operator was present during the delivery, there’s still the possibility that the operator wasn’t properly trained. That person may have known the unloading procedures but may have lacked knowledge of safety protocols in the case of a malfunction or emergency situation.

From all of this gathered information, it seems that several possible failures may have played roles in causing the chemical explosion. To start, there has been extensive testing done since the 1970’s on which materials are best suited to make containers for these compounds. This knowledge is easily available through international organizations such as the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and ASTM International. So, the Simar Company would certainly know which type of container needs to be sued for each of the chemicals. As for the pumps, they could have played a sizeable role in the explosion. Many pumps used in transferring chemicals are self-priming pumps that do their own priming. (Sugur 336)  This would remove the possibility of leftover chemical residue violently reacting with the liquid chemicals. However, there’s still the possibility of the pumps breaking down during the operation. This could have resulted from certain parts of the pump being worn out or over-corroded from long periods of use.

In addition, the lack of a trained operator present during the delivery may have a significant role, as well. If the operator wasn’t there to supervise the crew, they could have messed up the unloading procedure and caused some of the chemicals to leak or spill from their containers. However, there could have been workers at the delivery site at that time with enough experience to know how to unload the chemicals and what to do in case something breaks. While it could downplay this potential organizational failure, the lack of the operator still could have contributed to generating the explosion.

Another crucial factor to consider is human error. Reports about the explosion reveal that an accident occurred that caused the chemicals to mix and produce the large toxic cloud. (Smith)  “Accident” usually implies that people made mistakes and introduced unseen variables into a situation. As previously stated, there’s a wide range of possible scenarios where human error could have led to the explosion. One simple scenario is that the workers may have simply mishandled the containers during the unloading/loading operation, causing the chemicals to spill and mix. Another is the possibility of workers forgetting to prime the pumps before the transfer if self-priming pumps weren’t used. Due to such potential scenarios, human error could have played a large part in the plant explosion.

 

            On February 12, 2015, when the massive orange cloud began to rise over the town of Igualada and its surrounding areas, no one that lived in the area really had any idea of what it was or what it could do. Obviously it didn’t belong and people were frightened, but they were reassured that there was no immediate danger, and everyone in the area should remain indoors with their windows closed for their own safety. In the end, the Catalan government and the people of Igualada were very fortunate that the cloud was not dangerous and did not cause any deaths, although the immediate explosion did injure three people that were close to the original blast. Regardless of these facts, there are multiple aspects of this story that raise certain ethical issues.

            When the explosion occurred and the cloud emerged over the area, the company responsible, Simar, did not release any information concerning the cloud. They did not reveal how dangerous it was or what should be done in order to protect yourself from it. Instead they took the time figure out what exactly it was, which may sound like the right decision on paper; however, while they were trying to figure out the specifics, the residents in the area were at a high risk to exposure. To make matters worse the amount of wind in that region at the time of the explosion was negligible, which allowed the gas cloud to remain there for a longer period of time and there for increase the peoples’ time of exposure to the gas. To make matters worse, the information that Simar did release, was that one of the chemicals that caused the explosion was, nitric acid, which according to authorities, “is highly corrosive and toxic.” Simar should have released the worst case scenario disaster plan to authorities, and then determined what the dangers were and acted then and in that order, not backwards.

            The biggest and most obvious implication of the disaster was that of the impact of the local government left on the people of Igualada, Spain. This accident, as many others, was very unexpected and it affected almost the entire population of that town. Prior to it, life was operating normally; children were in school, people were out and about in the streets, and many were at work. But once the explosion took place, many were confused and scared, not knowing what to do when this orange cloud suddenly appeared in the sky. However, the local government acted fast and  responded to the problem at hand immediately and prevented the gas cloud intoxicating the population. They informed the locals of what was going as to prevent miscommunication and hysteria that could have lead to even more problems. 
    One of their first actions was to dispatch firefighters to the scene and prevent the explosion from getting any bigger. After that, they immediately informed the town of the dangers that the gas cloud was capable of, and made it mandatory for all civilians to remain indoors until the further notice. Even worried parents were not allowed to go outside to pick up their children from school. The authorities reassured them that as long people stayed inside, everyone should be safe from. This was a problem that was airborne, therefore it could pose serious health issues if some of the toxic air was inhaled, especially in children, elderly people, and pregnant women. So even after the two hour ban was lifted, this group of people were still advised to stay inside. This particular action shows how much the local government cared about its residents. First because the problem wasn't caused by them but they they still worked fast and efficiently to ensure the safety of the public and second because they still kept the best interests of those that would be most affected by the disaster, in mind. This will lead to a more positive image of the officials and workers that helped deal with the disaster since no civilians were severely affected by the disaster, all due to the efficiency of the local government. 
     The company responsible for the disaster will not be as lucky, however. Many factors will contribute to a reduced public image of them, one that might even affect future business. The first factor comes as a result of how careless or non-complex the accident appeared to be. It occurred because two barrels of toxic chemicals came in contact with one another while they were being transported. Something like this, so simple and fundamental should not have happened. If the company had been operating for long, it could only be assumed that they hadn't had an accident previous to this one due to them taking the  diligent precautions necessary in order to prevent a disaster from happening. This accident can be seen as a sign of the company slacking off in their safety practices or even normalization of deviance, which could lead to inspections. The accident will also definitely also hurt their business, not only because they already messed up on one transport but also because there now has been a breach of trust between them and the public, one that will require a lot of work to overcome. Also, since not much information was released about the company involve, one can only assume the legal implications that it will have to deal with. Surely, they will have to pay a fine(or multiple ones for that matter) due to the carelessness that came about of that accident. 
       Although the disaster was unfortunate,it gave Spain a very positive image. Since almost every country is so exposed to foreign media these days, it can be easy to for people to make assumptions of other countries based on the information presented to them. Because of this explosion, Spain was put in the spotlight in various media outlets across the world. However, the efficiency at which the problem was dealt with, gave Spain a good image boost. Now that one has been exposed to this information of the disaster, one knows the efficiency at which the authorities of the country as whole perform at. Although this is not easily true because the performance of one sector of government does not really guarantee the performance of other places. But, to an outsider with little information, this part of Spain is a representation of the whole; the same way that the way employees of a particular company present themselves, is a reflection of the company as a whole. Through this disaster, Spain was able to show the world that they can handle unexpected problems fast and efficiently, making sure the public safety is placed at utmost  priority. For people that were or are considering visiting Spain, this assures them that they are in good hands when staying abroad there. 
       Overall, the whole disaster was dealt with very swiftly, as to reduce the damage that the can explosion can cause. The injured that came about as a result of the explosion were taken to the hospital. The fire was contained, the public mobilized. The authorities did a great job and the public as well. The public in particular was very orderly and followed the orders without causing any mishap. In other places of the world, where the image of authorities is not not a very good one, one could have easily expected residents disobeying the ban to stay inside. And although the company involved could easily be accused of being careless, they did not try to shift or avoid the blame of the accident. This is a good sign because a company that doesn't admit to their mistake or one that doesn't acknowledge them, is very susceptible to making them again. Because there was so much attention placed on the accident, it can be expected that the company will take more safety precautions in the future to avoid such a business-devastating scandal. As a local society, Igualada achieved an image of people that work together very efficiently to minimize problems.

 

 

            In 1984, the Union Carbide India Limited company had a facility producing pesticides in the poor, residential city of Bhopal, India. When a gas leak occurred, a gas cloud formed and infected over 500,000 people, causing approximately 3,000 deaths due to poisoning. Although the chemicals being used in that area were different, when the explosion in Igualada occurred, the authorities and civilians in the area did not know how dangerous it was, and were not protected against the worst case scenario. And since one of the chemicals involved was a “very toxic and corrosive” nitric acid, the authorities should have been made aware of the situation immediately so they could react accordingly.

            So we know what happened, what went wrong, how it went wrong, and what would have happened if the same protocols were in place but the worst case scenario actually occurred. But what do we change? Even though the worst case scenario didn’t occur we still have the information needed in order to make adjustments for the future. First off, and the easiest mistake that could have been corrected in this particular instance, would be for the barrels to be shipped and housed more separately. If two chemicals can cause such a reaction if they mix, they should be shipped by completely different truck convoys, or, they should be shipped and placed into storage on different days to ensure minimal contact with each other. Things that can react with each other and cause that much damage should be kept as far away from each other as possible.

            In case something like this were to happen in the future such as some kind of leak that occurred in Bhopal, or explosion/reaction the government would have to be able to respond faster, and more efficiently than they did in this case in order to ensure maximum safety, especially considering the event occurred in a heavily residential area. However, in order for this to happen, the Catalan government, i.e. police, emergency medical services, and fire departments would have to have all of the necessary information so that way they can react accordingly. If some sort of reaction were to occur like this again, the first step would be for police to arrange evacuation for any one in immediate danger, of either explosions, or immediate gas leaks. Medical services would be responsible for making sure anyone with severe medical conditions are properly monitored and treated, and if they are exposed to some kind of dangerous substance, then they would be able to be treated and cared for immediately. Fire crews would be taking care of the immediate danger while trying not to risk their own lives and wellbeing. If an explosion or fire occurred, they would be there to make sure it doesn’t spread and they would be able to use the proper techniques for putting out that specific type of fire. For example if it is a chemical fire, water might not put out the flames so some other material would need to be used.

            All of those protocols are pretty straight forward and easy to implement on paper, however the most important part by far, will have to be absolute transparency with the plant and organization responsible. If something like the Igualada disaster were to occur again, the first responders would have to know, immediately, what exactly it is that they’re dealing with. What kind of chemicals, what kind of fire, what kind of explosions, etc. Once all of that can be confirmed and assessed, then the responsible party and government will be able to handle the situation on a case to case basis. If it turns out that the chemical cloud poisons people immediately and can cause 13,000 deaths, like the Bhopal disaster, then everyone will know to keep clear of the area for as long as necessary, until all of the pollutant is taken care of. If it turns out that the chemical is not harmful at all and will only produce an orange cloud that will dissipate in a few hours, then no more evacuation or monitoring will need to be done.

            The most important part is the clear passage of information. Once all of the information gets to the right people fast enough, then everyone will know, what exactly the threat is, and what needs to be done in order to eliminate it. During the Bhopal disaster, the company responsible, Union Carbide India Limited, did not pass on the necessary information to the people living in the residential areas, nor did they pass it to the proper authorities who could have prevented the thousands of deaths that occurred. Although the chemicals during the Igualada explosion were not nearly as dangerous, if they were and the safety protocols stayed in place, there could have been damages similar to the ones seen in Bhopal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources

“Bhopal Disaster.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 11 April 2015.

“Toxic Orange Cloud outside Barcelona after Chemical Blast.” – RT News. N.p., n.d. Web. 11

May 2015.

“Toxic Orange Cloud Spreads after Chemical Blast near Barcelona.” Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 12

 “Centrifugal Pump Priming.” Engineersedge.com. Engineers Edge, LLC, n.d. Web. 10 May

 2015.

“Dinitrogen Tetroxide Chemical Datasheet.” Cameo Chemicals. National Oceanic and

            Atmospheric Association (NOAA), n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

“Ferric Chloride.” dcwltd.com. DCW Limited, n.d. Web. 11 May 2015.

 “Ferric Chloride Chemical Datasheet.” Cameo Chemicals. National Oceanic and Atmospheric

            Association (NOAA), n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

“Ferric Chloride – Transporting and Unloading – Road.” Solvaychemicals.com. Solvay

            Chemicals International SA, Jan. 2008. Web. 11 May 2015.

“ICSC 0930 - Nitrogen Dioxide” Inchem.org. International Programme of Chemical Safety

            (IPCS), 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

“Nitric Acid.” ChemicalBook.com. ChemicalBook, n.d. Web. 22 April 2015.

“Nitric Acid.” Chemicalland21.com. n.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

“Propellant Transport Containers: Containers for the storage, transportation and transfer of space

            propulsion propellants.” EADS Astrium, n.d. Web. 09 May 2015.

Smith, Marina. “Massive Explosion in Barcelona, Spain – Massive Orange Cloud Caused by

            Rocket Propellants: Nitric Acid, Ferric Chloride and Dinitrogen Tetroxide.”

            Metroforensics.bogspot.com. Metropolitan Engineering, Consulting and Forensics

            (MCEF). Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

Sugur, V.S. & G.L. Manwani. “Problems in Storage and Handling Red Fuming Nitric Acid”.

            Defense Science Journal 33.4 (1983): 331-337. Scopus. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

“49 CFR 173.336 – Nitrogen dioxide, liquefied or dinitrogen tetroxide, liquefied.”

            Law.cornell.edu. Legal Information Institute (LII), 12 Jun. 2006. Web. 09 May 2015.

 

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

ESG 201: Homework Assignment 4 -- Drift into Failure

 

Stephen Megos

109120076

 

Question A)

All mechanical mechanisms have some sort of level of complexity, something like the wheel may not be extremely complext since there aren't many parts that go in to making a wheel roll. However the car that the wheel is attached to will be much more complex, since the car has wheels as well as a steering mechanism, navigation, electric windows, and an engine. And then an engine may also be found in a space shuttle on its way to the moon which is even more complex still. A mechanisms complexity is measured by the number of different parts that make up that mechanism. If something has many different intricacies and requires more pieces to make up the whole, then it will be more complex (as explained in the example earlier). When a machine or mechanism is extremely complex, it becomes exponentially more important to make sure that no piece of the mechanism fails.

 

As you add more and more pieces to a machine, the odds of a piece of the machine increase (since there are more parts that have the potential of malfunctioning. In addition, as more parts are added, those new parts now may increase the odds of an already existing pieces' odds of malfunctioning, which is how the total chance of failure exponentially increases.

 

In class we talked about the Columbia space shuttle, that exploded whilst on its way into space, which ended up killing the entire crew. The shuttle was, quite obviously, very large and had very many parts that could have gone wrong. What ended up happening was that a piece of the bindings attached to the rocket thrusters on the shuttle, froze in the cold temperatures. When the shuttle took off the engines began producing a great deal of energy (heat) which caused the bindings (O-rings) to snap and break since they were supposed to be elastic so that way they could move with the engines. These breakages in the  engines caused leaks of fuel and then caused a series of other failures which very quickly resulted in the failure of the entire shuttle and the eventual explosion.

 

The O-ring itself's failure was quite simple. The ring got too cold and was then expected to perform as if it was at a normal temperature, which it couldn't, so it broke. On its own that would be an extremely simple and harmless problem. However when the ring is responsible for keeping an entire shuttle in tact that was supposed to keep crew members alive, the ring failing proved to be catastrophic.

 

In another example, the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform failed after the well at the bottom of the drill began to leak. Like the Challenger explosion, something very simple failed at some point which set off a chain reaction resulting in a massive leak of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The platform however, had several automatic disaster mechanisms that were supposed to engage if a problem like this occured. Most if not all of these mechanisms failed which resulted in the leak. If the safety mechanisms engaged like they were supposed to, then there wouldn't be a problem; however, there must have been some other sort of problem, or the leak was so severe, that it prevented the oil well from being automatically capped properly because it interfered with the automatic safety equipment.

 

Question B)

The normilization of deviance, is defined as, "The gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable. As the deviant behavior is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm for the organization."

 

As mentioned before, the space shuttle "Challenger" exploded after an O-ring broke on one of the thrusters. Now the reason for the disaster is actually more complicated than that. NASA had launched ships into space before, so when the temperatures became far colder than previous launches, the NASA organization didn't think that there would be any real threats. That is because, through normilization of deviance, it became acceptable to launch rockets through any conditions. You can also relate this to the philosophy of: "It has worked fine so far, why change anything." Although a catastrophe had to occur, NASA learned to spend far more time looking at climate conditions, and how they might affect launches. So this is an excellent example of the negative effects, and what can be learned from the normilization of deviance.

 

Reflection:

By using online sources, the readings, and class material I was able to draw comparisons between different examples of normilization of deviance and how they can be related to different real world examples.

 

References:

http://lmcontheline.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-normalization-of-deviance-if-it-can.html

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

ESG 201: Homework Assignment 3 -- Energy Needs, Risk, and Complexity

 

Stephen Megos

109120076

 

The Deepwater Drill disaster was one of the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. Deep water horizon costed the oil industry and estimated 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m3) of oil. The spill costed 11 people their lives as well as caused a massive negative impact on the marine life of the gulf of Mexico as well the wild life in the Louisiana area and overall Guld of Mexico shoreline.

 

Many people make the argument that the size and massive volume of the Gulf of Mexico is so enormous that even though a large amount of oil was spilled, it still isn't enough to cause a major impact on the future of the region. Others say that even the slightest change to the ecosystem could impact the region forever and cause a dramatic change in the ecosystem. However, in all honesty, even after taking all the factors into account, we really won't know specifically what will happen 5, 10, 50. or even one hundred years from now, until that time comes. We know that the spill has caused destruction of ecosystems and a large amount of wildlife deaths; hopefully that will be the end of it and with a combination of the clean up effort, and eventual dilution of the oil, the worst is over and we have nothing major to worry about. That is the best case scenario. The worst case, is that we won't even be able to comprehend the amount of damage the spill has caused until we see first hand a widespread destruction of ecosystem, decline in marine wildlife, and other negative impacts.

 

Either way, the oil spill of Deep Water Horizon is the largest spill in recent history and should be treated as such. Not just BP, but the oil industry in general has taken a massive hit in popularity because of the spill. People are witnessing first hand just how much damage oil can do, how little of it we have, and what can happen if we run out, or mishandle it. This has caused a major change in attitude towards other energy sources. The popularity of things like electric cars, or solar and wind energy have all become much more popular and appealing options compared to oil and will hopefully prove to be a just as effective source of energy with far fewer negative side effects.

 

The need for alternative energy sources is more than apparent. Just the topic itself has become a widespread issue ranging from middle school classrooms, engineering classes in Universities, and political groups. The need for new energy is growing and the most important and valuable ally it has, is time. Students and young people around the country are pushing for more research and resources be put into putting new energy sources, which means that in 10 years we will be that much closer, and the next generation, and the next generation after that and so on and so forth, will be able to build on the accomplishments of the previous and hopefully, in short time, the young polititians and engineers of today can bring ideas to the table that no one today could even have dreamt of.

 

In the end the problem is clear and solution isn't. The Deepwater Horizon accident was more than a wake up call for Americans (some of the largest energy consumers in the world) as well as the world, and in time (hopefully sooner rather than later) we will be able to not only understand and prevent major disasters like the spill from happening again, but we will also be able to handle mistakes like this one more efficiently in the future in order to prevent the loss of resources, and most importantly, lives.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

ESG 201: Reflection of Qantus Airbus 380 Engine Failure

 

Stephen Megos

109120076

 

In the video about the Qantus Airbus 380 engine disaster, the Airbus 380 plane managed to stay in tact due to the work of the flight crew. The planes problems began when an engine exploded mid flight that cut the planes ability to cut certain aspects of power to the left engine and parts of the wing. The crew became aware of the problem and in turn, began solving each subsequent issue that occured with the plane. The planes malfunction was obviously a mechanical issue, after an oil leak occured in the engine that allowed a build up in the engine which, because of the speed and heat of the engine, cause the oil to catch fire and then cause the engine to explode. 

 

After the analysis and investigation was concluded, Rolls Royce issued a recall of all defective engines and corrected any potential cause of an oil leak.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

ESG 201: Reflection of Friday's Class

 

Stephen Megos

109120076

 

In class on Friday we watched a couple episodes of a History Channel show, regarding disasters and their effects. One of the main focuses of the class was the PEPCON explosion in Nevada in 1988. When the disaster occured,  ammonium perchlorate, and other extremely unstable and flammable materials caught fire and caused a massive fire/explosion that resulted in the deaths of 3, and the injuries of over 150. The materials that were being stored there were being stockpiled because of the lack of necessity. Because of the discontinuation of the space program, PEPCON no longer had any buyers of their fuel and other chemicals, so they had a massive stockpile of rocketfuel that wasn't being moved. When a small fire occured, it caused a massive explosion when the fuel caught fire, resulting in the deaths, injuries, and total destruction of the facility.

 

During the class we also watched a couple other documentaries, one regardinng the Three Gorges Dam in China, it's purpose, and plan of construction. There were also interviews conducted with experts who expressed doubts about the dam, saying that even with its size, it will not be able to hold back the force of a massive storm that that region of China can tend to experience.


We also learned about the Hilton walkway collapse that resulted in multiple deaths and other injuries of hotel guests. We also heard from the engineer who was responsible for the collapse and what exaclty went wrong and why. We learned that a certain part of the walkway that was supposed to be bolted together, was not bolted properly, which caused stress on the walkway, and its eventual collapse.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

ESG 201: Homework Assignment 2 -- Causes of Failure

 

Stephen Megos

109120076

 

Question: A/B)

On December 26 2004, an earthquake occured off the coast of Indonesia, in the Indian Ocean, that caused a tsunami so large that it wiped out entire villages and in countries all around the Indian Ocean. The tsunami was felt the hardest in Indonesia and Sri Lanka where 167,799 and 35,322 people are estimated to have been killed, respectively. The tsunami was also felt as far as India, Myanmar, and even Ethiopia (where 1 person was killed). In total, 230,273 are estimated to have been killed globally, and 1.74 million people were displaced by the tsunami, resulting in 14 billion (17.34 billion when adjusted for inflation) dollars to be donated in humanitarian aid.

 

There was a delay of a few hours between the time of the earthquake, and the time of the tsunamis landfall, however nearly every person affected was taking completely by surprise because of the lack of warning signals. Building tsunami detection systems is extremely difficult, considering the fact that the earthquakes and initial tsunamis begin at extremely deep depths, making placing sensors around all over such a massive area, in an extremely poor part of the world, is extremely difficult. The warning of a tsunami, is the earthquake itselt, however in many instances, including this one, the tsunami hit the area extremely hard wheras the earthquake was barely felt. In many instances, including this one, but not all, tsunamis will cause a "disappearing ocean" phenomenon, in which beaches will recede, in this case, 2.5km back into the ocean. Causing that entire area of the ocean to be completely exposed. In most cases however, rather than this be a warning to the people of the area, the disapearing act experienced on the beaches by the ocean, caused more people to fock to the beaches to witness the rare phenomenon. Many people, mostly children ran to look at the exposed beach, only to be greeted by the returning water, now with much greater force.

 

Above, a picture of a beach in Thailand, a couple hours before the third and final tidal wave of the tsunami. The extreme left of the photo is where the water normally reach and the shoreline is past the extreme right of the photo.

 

"The Ring of Fire," is a collection of underwater faultlines and volcanoes that create a ring shape throughout the Pacific Ocean. Underwater earthquakes and tsunamis are much more common here, due to the unstable nature of the Earth's tectonic plate structure. Although a portion of the ring of fire does in fact reach the Indian Ocean, there isn't a single detection system in the region, making tsunami detection nearly impossible. This tsunami originated in the ring of fire portion of the Indian Ocean, which is also the most likely place a tsunami will originate. So in actuallity the sensors and early detection warning systems should only be place along this portion of the Indian Ocean, which is pretty much the entirety of the Indonesean coast.

 

Since this tsunami has occured, many scientists and representatives from the worldwide community have proposed a worldwide tsunami protection system. In which all countries contribute to the construction of a tsunami protection system that includes the atlantic ocean and carribean. 

 

In my opinion this doesn't seem completely necessary, since North America and the carribean may be exposed to hurricaines but since they aren't located on any major subducting tectonic plate lines, the risk of tsunamis is relatively small and therefore spending time and resources building one for us seems unnecessary. If countries in Africa, South Asia, Australia, and the pacific/indian islands, got together to creat a massive protection system, then that would be much more beneficial and would benefit the entire region greatly. However this whole process will be time consuming, difficult, and expensive. Not to mention the amount of false alarms there will be, considering the fact that there are earthquakes in that region all the time that would trigger the early detection systems but that wouldn't cause any damage or tsunami at all.

 

From what I gather, two things need to happen in order for maximum efficiency and safety. There should be two lines of defense when it comes to tsunami disaster prevention.

 

1)

India, Indonesia, Singapore, The Maldives, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and other surrounding countries, should contribute money and construction resources to cover the majority, if not all of the portion of the Ring of Fire that reaches the Indian Ocean. This system should be able to pick up all major earthquakes at dangerous depths that may cause tsunamis in the area.

 

2)

The second line of defense should be a human, Quick Reaction Team, that is either station at air and naval bases acrooss the coast of the Ocean, as well as on naval vessels in the Indian Ocean. When an earthquake is detected a small team of specialists will use planes and helicopters with powerful cameras and portable sensors to try to view the are and assess whether a tsunami is imminent or not. If it does appear to be causing a harmful tsunami, then the warning system is triggered, and vulnerable areas will be evacuated until the tsunami passes.

 

sources:

 

Jayasuriya, Sisira and Peter McCawley, "The Asian Tsunami: Aid and Reconstruction after a Disaster". Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA USA: Edward Elgar, 2010.

 

"Tsunami devastates Somali island". BBC News. 2004-12-29. Retrieved 2012-12-24.

 

Wikipedia

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

ESG 201: Homework Assignment 1 -- Design and Risk

 

Stephen Megos

109120076

 

Question: A)

consequences of failure, or risk = [vulnerability x probability of occurrence x cost (or magnitude)] / mitigation or preparedness.

 

The above formula is an outline regarding the likelihood of something failing and what the scenario might look like if that thing fail.

 

Consequences of failure is the result, when a system fails or goes wrong, another word for this is risk. The rest of the formula is a pretty straight forward algorithm. in order to find the risk of a system, one must take the vulnerability, or how many problems that sytem will be made succeptible too, and then multiply that by the probability of at system failing. Why multiply? Because when something goes wrong, it will most likely have a direct and an immediate impact on a greater whole. The system being assessed is probably part of a more complex system so we need to be able to determine the outcome of a systems failure on a broader scale.

 

Then, we multiply that, by the cost. Cost can be measured in dollars or some other sort of magnitude that will be an implication of the system failing. When the system being assessed fails, depending on the system, it can cost a considerable amount of value. Whem the 'O' rings on the challenger space craft failed, a 7 people were killed, and a space craft that cost a little over 4 Billion dollars, practically desintigrated 73 seconds after its launch. Calculating cost may be the trickiest part when calculating consequences of failure/risk. Because, for example, an 'O' isn't a particularly dangerous or expensive object, compared to a spacecraft, so it may be tempting to say that if an 'O' ring fails, the cost is very minimal. However you must always be careful and make sure that when you are calculating cost, there are other results and other failures that may occur when a particular system fails, and those other failures may cause others, etc.

 

Once all that is calculated, the result must be divided by the mitigation of preparedness. In other words, you must take the total cost of the system failing and then figure out how it relates to how prepared you are for the failure, if there are reserves available, fail safes in place, people with adequate training that know how to stop those problems.

 

After all of the previous calculations have been determined, you will be able to assess how risky a system is.

 

Question: B)

In 2012, a company called 'Breathometer' came out with their first invention that would help save lives quickly, easily, and effeciently. The Breathometer, is a small breathalizer that can easily fit on a key chain or in your pocket that hooks up to your smart phone for easy transport. After a night of drinking out at a bar or party, rather than taking a risk and driving drunk, The Breathometer allows the user to blow into the device; and via an app on your smart phone, it tells you your BAC (Blood Alcahol Content) and then tells you whether it is safe for you to drive home. If your BAC level is above the legal amount, it automatically alerts you and gives you the option to call a cab using the UBER service (as of a partnership that was arranged 23 hours before this writing), or the app gives you the option to call a friend who might be able to give you a ride either to your home, or to the nearest hotel which you can also find via the app.

 

In this case the invention is heavily reliant on the software of the product since it is a program rather than a mechanical device. In this case some of the vulnerabilities are mostly software as well as hardware related. The software needs to be able to communicate with the app on your smart phone, incredibly quckly in order to have an efficient and practical usage. The devices batter life needs to be equal to or greater than your phone battery and charging time needs to be quick and easy so that way the device can always be ready and available for use. It also needs to link up with the UBER servers very quickly in order to have real time locations and distances from the user of The Breathometer, as well as the cab driver. And most importantly, the software that determines the BAC of the user needs to be able to perform 100% accurately every time it's used no matter what conditions it is under. It should be able to hadle the cold, as well as the heat, it shouldn't have to rely on an internet connection so that way in can be used in dead zones so that way people who may be intoxicated don't have to wonder around looking for a wifi connection.

 

All though not very many reliable sources were located, Car and Driver magazine did a review of The Breathometer, and wrote, "The Breathometer is... essentially useless" Car and Driver went on to write that a man who had three drinks and (using an official police breathalizer that established a control for the experiment) had a BAC of (.065, just over the newly established legal amount of 0.05. The Breathometer gave a reading of 0.20 which translates to 0.20 grams of alcohol for every dL of blood (or, 0.20% alcohol content within the blood). This was obviously an inaccurate reading, because anyone with a BAC of 0.20 would be vomiting uncontrollably, and would fall unconncious from overstress of the body. Something as important as a breathalizer must be able to handle at near 100% accuracy, and with a near 100% precision, especially since it takes human lives under consideration. The probability of this happening however, has been fairly small. Reviews on websites like Amazon, are very poor. Customers gave The Breathometer a rating of 3.1 out of 5, which is quite poor. Many people complained of a new problem, where the device doies not properly pair with newer phone devices. CNET reviewers rated it 2.5 out of 5, saying it was inconsistent, and inaccurate. An overall review on the CNET website stated "The Breathometer makes for a fun party game and a potential way to meet people in bars, but its testing results should not be taken as proof of driver safety."

 

As stated previously, the cost is of the utmost importance... human life. The Breathometer claims that it is a safe and efficient way to determine whether you are safe to drive, and if its reading fails, the user can be faced with catastrophic consequences, and can result in others or their own deaths.

 

The mitigation and preparedness of the system, is something of great interest. After investigating the companies statements, it is clear that the CEO and executives set up very many alerts and warnings that protect the comany from being sued or prosecuted for faulty readings. They pretty much say that their devices' recordings should be taken with a grain of salt and if they are inaccurate it isn't the comanies problem. So... financially the risk is very small for the company. They are able to make money and produce products with very few worries about whether their product is effecient or not, as long as people keep buying it. However for the user, the risk is quite high. If you are solely relying on The Breathometer to keep you safe, you could be in trouble, and you wouldn't be the first either.

 

Question: C)

When it comes to risk in the media, events tend to get quite exaggerated and taken out of context, as we discussed in class. Things like plane crashes or train accidents can be made to seem bigger and more threatening to the average person than they really are. If a plane crashes then people are devestated, there is 24 hour media coverage, field reporters, interviews, accusations, law suits, etc. After the coverage is getting slower and less appealing since there is only so much you can talk about, inevitiably someone comes out and makes some ludicrous statement about how flying is "the safest form of travel" which is not true, BUT, because it is such an eye opening statement, people tend to listen and pay attention because it seems so much more interesting than it really is. As a media consumer, it seems to me that the media is more often than not, emotionally driven rather than scientifically. News programs spend much more times reporting on peoples emotions and. how people feel about their loved ones dying in a plane crash, or how people feel about oil soaked pelicans washing up on the Louisiana shore after Deep Water Horizon, which in all honesty, I as a consumer can probably figure out using common knowledge. It would be far more productive to talk about, what went wrong, who is responible, what else that party is responsible for, and what can be learned from this disaster in order to prepare so that way this incident won't happen again.

 

Reflection:

I learned a lot about how companies deal with risk in different ways when it comes to the release of their products and services. Some companies priorotize money or quality products. What gets dangerous, in the case of The Breathometer, is when something that takes responsobility for people's lives, does not priorotize the quality or safety of the product, which may lead to high revenues, but could lead to a faulty product. I learned that when it comes to doing any kind of work, you should put in as much work as it takes in order to create a quality product rather than prioritize immediate revenue.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.