accident investigation unit V assignment

Running head: ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION 1

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION 5

Accident Investigation

Student’s Name

Institution

Part 1

Events	Causal factor for the incident
1988- An incident tank is bought by southern Sun.	The company fails to fully inspect the incident tank before purchasing it.
1994-The incident tank is relocated from its original installation.	When relocating the incident tank, the company does not consider all safety measures and procedures.
1996- Southern Sun propane business is bought by Ferellgas.	Ferellgas did not ensure that all safety procedures are followed before buying propane business.
1996-2007- The incident tanks is filled 14 times annually by Ferellgas drivers and 140 pre-fill installations are done.	The employees do not wait until the tank is empty so as to avoid any corrosion of gasses.
2000- Two installation reviews are performed by Ferellgas employees on the propane system.	The installation reviews are not inspected by OSHA or any agency that ensures that all companies adhere to the set safety rules.

Part 2

Potential causal factors revealed in the analysis

From the analysis, it is clear that the incident would have been avoided. The analysis reveals that the company had not gone through all the required procedures in ensuring that the gas was safely stored. The propane tank was installed against the store’s wall. Propane is highly flammable whether in liquid or gaseous state. According to the rules and regulations of OSHA, any object or material that exposes employees to body harm should be kept away from the work premises. The company did not obey the rules when installing the propane tank against the wall. One of the reasons why the fire spread fast and damaged a lot of properties is because the tank was against the wall (Lenten, 2012).

How do these causal factors compare to the causal factors found in the CSB’s investigation report?

CSB’s investigation results stated that the fire was not a criminal act; however, the tragedy would have been avoided if all safety rules were followed. CSB’s investigation report is similar to the causal factors revealed in the analysis. Most of the procedures that would have helped in avoiding the tragedy were ignored.

Should there be more analysis?

In my own opinion, more analysis should not be done. The analysis that was already done gave satisfying results. The results have matched up with the incident. According to the way, the investigation was conducted, the results were satisfactory and there is no need for another analysis. Another analysis would have been conducted if the results did not solve the puzzle of the incident. The investigation bodies that conducted the investigations are competitive and resourceful. Every procedure that is important in an investigation was followed. The investigators are skilled and that is one of the reasons why the evidence collected helped in knowing the root cause of the incident (Kauffman, 2000).

References

Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigation. London: Oxford University Press.

Lentini, J. (2012). Scientific Protocols for Fire Investigation, Second Edition. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.