Case Study The Bacton Gas Blast
Task 3 case study
Background information
On the 28th of February 2008, a leak of extremely flammable hydrocarbon an explosion had a taken place at the bacton gas terminal in Norfolk, located in the north east of England. This lead to a large amount of concrete and metal coming from the roof being propelled 100 meters high, alongside a huge fire that took 50 firefighters two hours to put out. Fortunately all 46 personnel were evacuated from the site unhurt. That was down to good fortune due the fact that it occurred during a shift change. Becton gas terminal consists of 5 gas terminals known as Interconnector, Eni, Perenco, Shell and national grid. The gas terminals are owned by Royal Dutch shell, ExxonMobil and Perenco receiving gas from …show more content…
The police force was involved in the investigation for the reasons behind the blast. The fire brigade were involved in dealing with the fire from the blast.
What were the Companies prosecuted for
The fines were handed on violations regarding the matter of safety, environmental control and pollution prevention failures.
The total fines ended up at a total of £1,242,000.00
The regulations they failed to follow all come under the HASAWA (1974):
1. Failing to discharge a duty imposed by Regulation 4 of the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations1999 contrary to Section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Regulation 4 of COMAH. For example the way had their temperature gauges installed was wrong, which meant that the leak went undetected
2. Failing to discharge a duty to employees imposed by Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The blast put all the employees at risk of serious injury or even death which meant that the boss failed to look after the welfare of his staff even though all 46 staff were able to evacuate the building …show more content…
Secondly the must inspect the significance of any probable activity that might leading to the breaching of a law, if so they must enforce the appropriate penalties. Furthermore asses the awareness of the duty holder’s earlier health and safety performance. In addition to this inspectors can interview staff and any people with relevance to the incident. The have to ensure that if a breach has been detect it then some action is to be taken to get rid of the underlying causes and prevent It from happening again. They are allowed to collect any item at the time of inspection to be used as evidence tin the
Background information
On the 28th of February 2008, a leak of extremely flammable hydrocarbon an explosion had a taken place at the bacton gas terminal in Norfolk, located in the north east of England. This lead to a large amount of concrete and metal coming from the roof being propelled 100 meters high, alongside a huge fire that took 50 firefighters two hours to put out. Fortunately all 46 personnel were evacuated from the site unhurt. That was down to good fortune due the fact that it occurred during a shift change. Becton gas terminal consists of 5 gas terminals known as Interconnector, Eni, Perenco, Shell and national grid. The gas terminals are owned by Royal Dutch shell, ExxonMobil and Perenco receiving gas from …show more content…
The police force was involved in the investigation for the reasons behind the blast. The fire brigade were involved in dealing with the fire from the blast.
What were the Companies prosecuted for
The fines were handed on violations regarding the matter of safety, environmental control and pollution prevention failures.
The total fines ended up at a total of £1,242,000.00
The regulations they failed to follow all come under the HASAWA (1974):
1. Failing to discharge a duty imposed by Regulation 4 of the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations1999 contrary to Section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Regulation 4 of COMAH. For example the way had their temperature gauges installed was wrong, which meant that the leak went undetected
2. Failing to discharge a duty to employees imposed by Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The blast put all the employees at risk of serious injury or even death which meant that the boss failed to look after the welfare of his staff even though all 46 staff were able to evacuate the building …show more content…
Secondly the must inspect the significance of any probable activity that might leading to the breaching of a law, if so they must enforce the appropriate penalties. Furthermore asses the awareness of the duty holder’s earlier health and safety performance. In addition to this inspectors can interview staff and any people with relevance to the incident. The have to ensure that if a breach has been detect it then some action is to be taken to get rid of the underlying causes and prevent It from happening again. They are allowed to collect any item at the time of inspection to be used as evidence tin the