CONTAINMENT SPECIAL
CASE STUDIES
www.fishfarmer-magazine.com
35
CASE STUDY - 2 DESIGNING OUT ‘UNLUCKY’
SITUATION: SMOLT TRANSFER INCIDENT: TRANSFER PIPE FAILURE
RESPONSE: ELIMINATE THE USE OF COUPLINGS
The situation:
Smolts were being transferred from a land-based freshwater facility to a wait- ing wellboat for onward transfer to sea sites. As the freshwater facility enjoys a coastal location, the wellboat can an- chor in the bay and smolts can be care- fully pumped directly to the boat. This is a routine operation for this company which has been undertaken without inci- dent on many occasions over the years – and one which is replicated by fi sh farmers throughout Scotland and abroad. The lengths of transfer pipe were joined together with standard clamps – ‘bauer lever closures’ for the technically mind- ed - which tightly grip the pipes togeth- er, providing a secure seal. As an addi- tional precaution – and in line with the company’s standard operating procedures – the levers were tightly secured with a rope winding to prevent against acciden- tal opening.
The incident:
Fish were being sent in batches to the wellboat – controlled by the company’s personnel using radios on the shore. Al- though the wellboat tries to align itself to be broadside to the shore – and hence square on to the transfer pipe – an an- chored vessel does tend to swing a little in the wind and current. Unfortunately – unluckily – the wellboat swung at anchor and the anchor chain caught on the clamp lever. The chain quickly chaffed the rope and caught under the lever, causing it to open. As the lever opened, the pipe came apart.
The company’s shore side personnel im- mediately radioed their colleagues by the tanks to stop the transfer. However, the next batch of fi sh had just been released
and the company was powerless to prevent them being discharged directly to sea as the pipe came apart.
THE RESPONSE
This is the only incident of its type that we’re aware of – suggesting that this is a ’one-off.’ However, the best approach to risk management is to eliminate the possibility of an incident through clever design - design- ing out unlucky. And, this is exactly what the company did.
On the back of this incident, and also in response to another transfer pipe problem (when brand new couplings failed immedi- ately in a different situation), the company reconsidered the whole issue of the use of transfer pipes.
The only way to eliminate the risk of pipe failure was, in their view, to eliminate the use of couplings. They changed company policy to only use single length transfer pipes without couplings. They purchased new pipes and disposed of the old ones. As their company representative said, this was the ultimate in risk reduction. ‘Whatev- er approach we took to reduce the chance of coupling failure, the potential remained and hence we implemented measures to remove this risk entirely. We have been very pleased with the outcome. Although costly, it has reduced the opportunity for escapes and has not led to any operational difficulties.’
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100