Emergency loss prevention

Huff, J. E., Plots Through Emergency Relief Devices and Reaction Forces, Journal Loss Prevention Process Induslnes, (3), 43-49, January 1990. 

Grossel, S. S., Vn Overriew of Equipment for Containment and Disposal of Emergency Relief System Effluents, y(ntrnaZ Loss Prevention Process Industries, (3), 112-124, January 1990. 

In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a flurry of interest in precipitation techniques as a method of keeping ions in their in vivo locations, and thus avoid the problems mentioned in Subheading 3.1. The idea was simply to add a precipitant to the fixative, which reacted with the ion in question, and hopefully kept it where it was in the tissue. The most popular technique was to use a silver salt to precipitate chloride ions (35). Two problems emerged loss of ions was not totally prevented (36) and quantification was not possible. This led to the almost complete... 

Process system emergency safety features (i.e. ESD, isolation, depressurization and blowdown) should be considered the prime safeguards for loss prevention over fire protection measures (i.e. fireproofing or barriers, firewater systems, manual fire fighting). 

Forrest, H. S., L. S. Kirch, and G. R. Van Sciver (1989). "Worst Credible Case for Emergency Relief of Chemically Reacting Systems Questionnaire." 23rd Annual Loss Prevention Symposium, April 5, 1989, Houston, TX. 

Since fires are frequently identified as the dominant type of loss event in many process facilities, the fire prevention program should be considered an essential part of a Risk Management System. Fire prevention often includes procedures and features to support other types of emergency management and loss prevention efforts. 

Minimum Requirements contains a statement of policy and a list of specific requirements in three sections, Safety, Loss Prevention, and Security, plus a section on Other Related Safety, Loss Prevention and Security Requirements. The latter section addresses distribution emergency response, industrial hygiene and medical programs, material hazard identification, and product stewardship. 

Cast iron is undesirable (and prohibited by certain flammable liquid codes) because a brittle fracture can lead to a massive leak. Some months after this mistake, the unit received a loss prevention audit and as a result the pump bowls were replaced with ductile iron units. This same audit prompted the installation of remotely operated emergency shut-off valves around these pumps. 

In 1984, one of the most notable process incidents occurred in Bhopal, India, at a plant owned by Union Carbide. On December 3, 1984, methyl isocyanate (MIC) was vented to the atmosphere from a vent gas scrubber after a run away reaction overwhelmed the scrubber. It is reported that more than 2500 people died and 20,000 people were injured as a result of exposure to MIC. The subsequent investigation showed that the run away reaction occurred in the MIC tanks after water was reportedly intentionally added to the tank. The safety systems, a pressure relief valve, a vent gas scrubber, and a flare were reportedly poorly maintained. The relief valve worked to vent the pressure, but the scrubber was overwhelmed, and the flare was down for maintenance. This incident highlighted several loss prevention areas that needed improvement. The first was mechanical integrity. No strong preventive maintenance effort appeared to be in place. The second was emergency preparedness and response. It appears that while the plant was built 1.5 miles away from the community, zoning problems allowed the community to expand to the plant limits. It does not appear that much effort was made to work with the community on commimication/notification or evacuation needs. ... 

A substantial portion of the budget of most safety and loss prevention professionals allows for the purchase of personal protective equipment for their employees, medical supplies, and professional services, as well as salary and benefits for staff. Virtually all of these costs are fixed but often possess an ongoing expense factor. Additionally, safety and loss prevention professionals are often faced with emergency situations and unforeseen costs requiring specific items on an immediate basis. In essence, safety and loss prevention can be expensive, but methods are available to manage these costs appropriately. 

Thomas D. Schneid is a tenured professor in the Department of Safety, Security and Emergency Management (formerly Loss Prevention and Safety) at Eastern Kentucky University and serves as the graduate program director for the online and on-campus master of science degree in safety, security and emergency management. 

---