The US Chemical Safety Board says that the 2006 chemical explosion in Danvers, Massachusetts could have been avoided if ink manufacturer CAI Inc had implemented the proper safety measures at its factory.
The safety board issued its findings today in a final report. Although CAI and Arnel, Inc., a specialty paintmaker both ran the plant, the safety board is holding CAI accountable because the board says one of its employees did not turn off the ventilation system while chemicals were being heated. The employee, however, disputes this finding and says he shut down the heat before leaving for the day.
The report also described the differences that exist between federal and state safety regulations and why these gaps need to be remedied.
Safety board member William Wright said that the CAI should have installed automated safeguards and an alarm system rather than leaving the safety measures to be manually activated by employees that could make mistakes.
The board says that the chemical explosion took place at around 2:46 am.
Fortunately, no one died in the explosion that forced 300 people to evacuate the neighborhood and destroyed 3 buildings and 16 houses. 10 people, however, did sustain minor injuries.
CAI’s attorney is disputing the safety board’s findings. He says that the company’s own investigation (based on computer modeling of the explosion) has reached a completely different conclusion.
Property owners and their insurance companies have filed property damage lawsuits against CAI.
Report: Lack of safeguards led to Danvers plant explosion, Boston Herald, May 13, 2008
Federal report: Danvers 2006 explosion could have been prevented, Boston.com, May 13, 2008
Read the US Chemical Safety Board’s Report (PDF)
Related Web Resources:
How they survived, Boston.com, November 28, 2006
In Danvers and in other cities across Massachusetts, our Boston-based personal injury and property damage attorneys represent clients that have been injured or suffered serious property damage because of the negligent or careless actions of another party. Contact Altman & Altman LLP today.