Unit VAssignment
Barrier Analysis Worksheet Project
Read the U.S. Chemical Safety Board investigation report of the 2007 propane explosion at the Little General Store in Ghent, WV. The final report can be read/downloaded at the following link:
https://www.csb.gov/assets/1/20/csbfinalreportlittlegeneral.pdf?13741.
Additional information on the incident, including a video summary, can be found at the following link: http://www.csb.gov/littlegeneral-store-propane-explosion/
NOTE: This is the same investigation report used to create the events and causal factors (ECF) chart in Unit IV.
Complete the assignment as detailed below.
Part I: From the information in the report, create a three-column barrier analysis worksheet. Use the sample form on page 173 of the course textbook as a template, and follow the instructions below:
a. In the first column, list the barriers. Group the barriers by category (failed, not used, did not exist).
b. In the second column, describe the intended function of each barrier.
c. In the third column, evaluate the performance of the barrier.
Part II: On a separate page, discuss the potential causal factors that are revealed in the analysis. Are there additional causal factors that were not identified in the ECF chart you created in the Unit IV assignment? This part of the assignment should be a minimum of one page in length. BOS 4601, Accident Investigation 2
Upload Parts I and II as a single document. For Part II of the assignment, you should use academic sources to support your thoughts. Any outside sources used, including the sources mentioned in the assignment, must be cited using APA format and must be included on a references page.

Barrier Analysis Worksheet Project – Unit V

 Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Instructor’s Name

Date

Barrier Analysis Worksheet Project – Unit V

Part I

Part II

            The barrier analysis worksheet above indicates four potential causal factors that led to the explosion of propane in 2007. The first causal factor is the defective withdrawal valve on the propane tank (CSB, 2008). The valve was meant to prevent propane leakage which could further cause an explosion. The technician removed the valve because it was defective. The second causal factor is related to the onsite training of the junior technician by the senior technician. The senior technician failed to train the junior hence, he did not know what to do when the valve became defective (Urbina, 2007). Onsite training is very important to ensure technicians are familiar with their job and cognizant of possible hazards.

The third identified causal agent is the failure to place the propane tank 10 feet from the building. This instruction is important to ensure propane does not vent into the building in case of similar hazards (CSB, 2008). The barrier was neglected by those involved in the initial installation of the propane tank. Last but not least, the lack of standard of operation procedures led to the catastrophe. Both the junior technician and the fast responders lacked proper training. Standard of operation procedure is a document that one can refer to show how certain operations are done. They are very important documents in any organization (Müller-Landau & Varela, 2021). Comparing this analysis to the events and causal factors analysis, new causal factors include defective valve and lack, failure to place the tank 10 feet from the wall, and lack of standard of operation procedures. All these three were not captured in the event and causal factor chart.

References

CSB. (2008). U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board: Investigation report, Little General Store – Propane Explosion. https://www.csb.gov/assets/1/20/csbfinalreportlittlegeneral.pdf?13741

Müller-Landau, H., & Varela, P. F. (2021). Standard operation procedure for switchSENSE DRX systems. European Biophysics Journal, 50(3), 389-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00249-021-01519-3

Urbina. (2007). 4 Killed in Gas Explosion Near West Virginia Resort. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/us/31blast.html