A propane explosion was experienced in Toronto along the 54 Murray Road on 10 th August 2008. The cause of the blast was related to the leakage of propane as a result of a hose failure during the transfer from one tank to another. However, the source of the ignition was not identified. The discussion will analyze the incident, the apparent causes of the incident, the various codes and regulations that were violated, and the corrective steps that could have been taken to prevent the occurrence of the incident.
Synopsis of the Incident
The propane explosion involved a series of fire that occurred in Toronto on the morning of 10 th August 2008. The origin of the explosion was the Sunrise Propane Industrial Gases which was facility producing propane. The explosion resulted in a massive evacuation of people from their homes ( Keil & Young, 2011). The amount of money that was spent on evacuation and cleaning up was close to $1.9 million, part of which was catered for by the province of Ontario. During the initial explosion, an employee working at the Sunrise died while the next day a firefighter was reported to have died due to cardiac arrest.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Sunrise Propane Industrial Gases carried out a business that involved the selling of propane that was either used commercially or for domestic purposes. Also, the company sold other gases such as acetylene and helium alongside propane. The facility under which the business operated was built in a residential neighborhood. The incident began with a heavy explosion followed a series of other explosions that led to the splashing of massive fireballs and smoke into the atmosphere. Metal pieces that resulted from the exploded tanks were disseminated in the nearby streets as asserted by Armenakis and Nirupama (2009). The explosion led to the destruction of homes and offices that were either in the neighborhood or along the streets. Close to 200 firefighters were recruited to deal with the fire that resulted from the explosions.
The police carried out a massive evacuation of people living around the scene due to the threat of further explosions and the health hazard that was presented by the resulting quality of air. This involved those residents who were residing within a radius of 1.6 kilometers. Buses were used to transport people from these areas in the morning to safer areas such as York University and Downsview Park. Other than the evacuation of individuals, the explosion also resulted in the closure of roads and major highways. This particularly affected several highways such as 404 and 400 in a period that lasted for up to 12 hours as stated by Keil and Young (2009). After the initial explosion, several rail tankers continued to burn leading to the fear of another possible explosion. Air transport was also affected by the blast as flying with smaller private aircraft was restricted in the area. However, commercial aircraft were allowed to continue their normal operations in the Pearson International Airport.
The incident had several casualties. Six people were immediately hospitalized after the explosion. A further 18 went to the hospital and were admitted on their account. Another 40 people were treated with the Emergency Medical Services near the scene. One firefighter lost their life in the course of duty. The medical team tried to revive his life with minimal success as the person succumbed to death. Investigations were after that opened and were initiated by the office of the Ontario Fire Marshal. Some residents were allowed to go back to their homes after 15 hours elapsed since the last explosion. The police remained vigilant at checkpoint ensuring that vehicles were not allowed in the area. Medical tests were conducted in certain areas to confirm the presence of airborne asbestos. The most notable destruction caused by the explosion was Jewish Cemeteries in Toronto that had stayed for almost 100 years and holding close to 11000 graves as asserted by Armenakis and Nirupama (2013).
Root Causes of the Incident
The investigation of the explosion was opened by the office of the Ontario Fire Marshal. The major implication to the explosion and subsequent fire was tied to an illegal activity by a truck driver that involved a truck-to-truck transfer of propane. The track to track transfer also included what was known as ‘'tank-to-tank'' transfer of the gas. The gas hose that was used in the said transfer leaked, hence leading to the release of the dangerous gas into the atmosphere.
Regulations and Codes That Were Violated
The truck-to-truck transfer of propane was an illegal act. The Sunrise Propane Company deliberately refused to comply with the regulations that prohibit truck to track or tank to tank kind of transfer. The company also lacked the necessary license that could have allowed it to perform such a delicate operation. According to Kalantarnia et al. (2009), the company also failed to demonstrate compliance with the Technical Standards and Safety Authority provisions that prohibited such kind of acts. The ministry of the environment also castigated the company for failing to prove the possession of ‘'proper preventive maintenance system.''
Corrective Actions that could have prevented the Incident
The first corrective action was that the propane company could not have been built within a neighborhood in the first place. Bouloiz, Garbolino & Tkiouat, (2010) said that it could have been constructed in an isolated place where there are minimal human activities to prevent exposing people to potential dangers of explosion. The relevant authorities could have undertaken a thorough scrutiny to ensure that the propane company adheres to environmental policies in their handling of the flammable gases. The constant scrutiny could also ensure that the firm engages in safety practices while handling their gases.
References
Armenakis, C., & Nirupama, N. (2009). Vulnerability assessment using GIS: Toronto propane explosion. In Proceedings CRH Net Symposium, Edmonton, November (pp. 23-26).
Armenakis, C., & Nirupama, N. (2013). Estimating spatial disaster risk in urban environments. Geomatics, Natural Hazards, and Risk , 4 (4), 289-298.
Bouloiz, H., Garbolino, E., & Tkiouat, M. (2010). The contribution of a systemic modeling approach applied to support risk analysis of a storage unit of chemical products in Morocco. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries , 23 (2), 312-322.
Kalantarnia, M., Khan, F., & Hawboldt, K. (2009). Dynamic risk assessment using failure assessment and Bayesian theory. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries , 22 (5), 600-606.
Keil, R., & Young, D. (2009). Fringe explosions: risk and vulnerability in Canada's new in between urban landscape. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien , 53 (4), 488-499.
Keil, R., & Young, D. (2011). Introduction: in-between Canada—the emergence of the new urban middle. In $ Between Infrastructure , 1.
