DCHAS members,=46rom what I could decipher, it seems like a possible delayed exotherm from a storage container (flask, bottle). What was the material, etc.? Cannot say at this point, and speculation would be moot.It does seem that the cabinetry did perform effectively, which is always a good thing.The vapors identified may not have been emulating from the point-of-incidence; hopefully a follow up will be forthcoming that we can all read and discuss.Thanks for posting this, Dean.Cheers!-GeorgeFrom: "Dean Lillquist" <lillquistd**At_Symbol_Here**GMAIL.COM>
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:55:11 AM
Subject: [DCHAS-L] University of Utah Chemistry Building - small explosion
The take-home message from them:
Overall, he said, the safety measures that were in place did what they were designed to do.
"The cabinet did its job," he said. "It's proof that those safety measures work."
I would like to seen their after action investigation report.
Their engineering controls did appear to work. But-
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Benjamin Franklin
I wonder about their administrative controls in place - especially their chemical storage and inventory program.
I might speculate a chemical storage issue: incompatibility and/or chemical expiration issue.
If this was the root cause, it would have been preventable.
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post