Chao Phraya Barge Accident Highlights Need For Safety Rules

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Barge accident highlights need for safety rules

By The Nation

Water transport has great economic potential, but only if laws and regulations are actually enforced to make it safe for all concerned

On May 31, a barge carrying about 2,400 tonnes of brown sugar hit a bridge pillar and sank into the Chao Phraya River, causing pollution damage in five provinces - Ayutthaya, Pathum Thani, Nonthaburi, Samut Prakan and Bangkok.

The responsible parties and authorities should have better dealt with this incident. Now that officials are trying to clean up the damage caused by the sunken barge, the agencies involved should accelerate the investigation to find the cause of the accident to avoid a repetition in the future.

The accident was unfortunate but it should have been preventable and the response should have been better. The authorities should use the case as an example against operators because the impact could have been far worse.

Members of the public are now asking for the responsible parties to be made accountable and for measures and systems to be enforced to ensure sustainable industrial development and consumption. One of the questions is whether we have an adequate legal framework and regulations to govern water transport and its impact on the environment.

As of press time, the barge had yet to be retrieved, prompting concern about the effects of the spillage on the livelihoods of people living along the riverside, as well as the overall riverine environment. The Chao Phraya is a major waterway that supports many people and an abundance of wildlife and habitats.

The important question is, who will be held accountable? Who will pay for compensation to people affected by the accident and for damage caused?

The responsible parties are not just the boat captain and the sugar company, but also the relevant government agencies. The spilled sugar damaged the quality of the water because it dissolved into the river and killed many aquatic animals. The barge itself affected the river currents, causing the rapid erosion of nearby banks.

The Harbour Department should take this case seriously and set an example for barge transport operators and producers of goods that are transported by river. The incident is unfortunate but it should provide us with a further lesson now that we have seen a series of industrial accidents that caused environmental pollution due to human carelessness.

This is not to suggest a ban or severe restrictions on barge transport. In fact, Thailand has not fully utilised the potential of barge transport, even though it is one of the most fuel-efficient methods of moving raw materials and semi-finished products. Water transport in fact should be promoted because carriers consume less energy per tonne-mile, lower than railway transport, which is the next lowest, and around one-quarter or less of the cost of road transport. In addition, barges have a high load capacity, being able to carry as much as ten rail cars, while one rail car can carry as much as ten trailer trucks.

Barge transport can be better utilised if the government agencies responsible set out clear laws and regulations to prevent possible environmental damage - and, more importantly, enforce those laws and regulations Freight transportation is an essential part of our economic development. But transportation systems should be as environmentally friendly as possible, to leave the least negative impact on the land and people.

This barge accident may not be the last, but it should raise awareness over the interdependence of natural habitat and transport modes. The authorities must heed what could have been done to avert the incident.

The timing of the accident coincides with the general election campaign. Now that the case has drawn strong public attention, politicians should begin to think about environmentally related policies in response to the public need.

The challenge is how to plan future systems in which companies, transportation designers and the public can work together to ensure that industrial development and public consumption are balanced against the goal of a sustainable environment.

-- The Nation 2011-06-09

[OzMick]

The OP starts off re safety but "The important question is, who will be held accountable? Who will pay.........." gets to the core pretty quickly!

[haveaniceday]

The easy solution, just put huge green "SAFTEY FIRST" signs along the river bank every 50m

Have you every wondered how many labourous on building sites are bilingle and can read English signs anyway ?

Just part of the Amazing Show I spose !

Edited June 9, 2011 by haveaniceday

[Nisa]

The spilled sugar damaged the quality of the water because it dissolved into the river and killed many aquatic animals.

I'm not sure I buy this. I could be wrong but I don't think the sugar would kill much of anything and would dissolved, dissipate and be carried out to sea very quickly. It may have actually provided a source of food to a number of kritters in the river that survive the very polluted water. Rather than the sugar, I would think the oil, fuel and other contaminants on board would pose a more serious problem.

Bottom line ... I would like to know what and how many (estimate beyond "many") aquatic animals were killed.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Nisa

[whybother]

The spilled sugar damaged the quality of the water because it dissolved into the river and killed many aquatic animals.

I'm not sure I buy this. I could be wrong but I don't think the sugar would kill much of anything and would dissolved, dissipate and be carried out to sea very quickly. It may have actually provided a source of food to a number of kritters in the river that survive the very polluted water. Rather than the sugar, I would think the oil, fuel and other contaminants on board would pose a more serious problem.

Bottom line ... I would like to know what and how many (estimate beyond "many") aquatic animals were killed.

It's a barge. There is no oil or fuel on board.

[Nisa]

The spilled sugar damaged the quality of the water because it dissolved into the river and killed many aquatic animals.

I'm not sure I buy this. I could be wrong but I don't think the sugar would kill much of anything and would dissolved, dissipate and be carried out to sea very quickly. It may have actually provided a source of food to a number of kritters in the river that survive the very polluted water. Rather than the sugar, I would think the oil, fuel and other contaminants on board would pose a more serious problem.

Bottom line ... I would like to know what and how many (estimate beyond "many") aquatic animals were killed.

It's a barge. There is no oil or fuel on board.

I also stand corrected, at least according to news accounts, that state the problem with the sugar in the water dramatically lowered the oxygen level in the effected areas. This is supposedly what caused the fish to die. However it seems they stressed the fish that died were part of hatcheries on the water. I don't know the currents in the area but would assume this would be washed away very quickly, especially since the current seems strong there based on the reports of serious erosion taking place. I am not a chemist or marine biologist but something still doesn't jive in my mind about sugar killing off marine life in a river this wide and deep and with a generally strong flow and/or water movement.. As I recall the current may not be that strong but that water is always churning.

[whybother]

I also stand corrected, at least according to news accounts, that state the problem with the sugar in the water dramatically lowered the oxygen level in the effected areas. This is supposedly what caused the fish to die. However it seems they stressed the fish that died were part of hatcheries on the water. I don't know the currents in the area but would assume this would be washed away very quickly, especially since the current seems strong there based on the reports of serious erosion taking place. I am not a chemist or marine biologist but something still doesn't jive in my mind about sugar killing off marine life in a river this wide and deep and with a generally strong flow and/or water movement.. As I recall the current may not be that strong but that water is always churning.

I don't think the sugar would have all washed away immediately. There was 2,500 tonnes of the stuff.

It would have slowly dissolved into the water over a number of days.

[ginjag]

The spilled sugar damaged the quality of the water because it dissolved into the river and killed many aquatic animals.

I'm not sure I buy this. I could be wrong but I don't think the sugar would kill much of anything and would dissolved, dissipate and be carried out to sea very quickly. It may have actually provided a source of food to a number of kritters in the river that survive the very polluted water. Rather than the sugar, I would think the oil, fuel and other contaminants on board would pose a more serious problem.

Bottom line ... I would like to know what and how many (estimate beyond "many") aquatic animals were killed.

It's a barge. There is no oil or fuel on board.

I also stand corrected, at least according to news accounts, that state the problem with the sugar in the water dramatically lowered the oxygen level in the effected areas. This is supposedly what caused the fish to die. However it seems they stressed the fish that died were part of hatcheries on the water. I don't know the currents in the area but would assume this would be washed away very quickly, especially since the current seems strong there based on the reports of serious erosion taking place. I am not a chemist or marine biologist but something still doesn't jive in my mind about sugar killing off marine life in a river this wide and deep and with a generally strong flow and/or water movement.. As I recall the current may not be that strong but that water is always churning.

Hi, I and most people will usually not find out how much fish was lost, but seeing the very large 6 ft Ray dead it must have been lacking some oxygen.

But as normal, the example of the lady claiming 5 mill bht for her loss of fish and so on. the over the top claims will surely be coming in thick and fast. In my post on the earlier topic incident The barge weighing 500 tons-sank with 2500 tons of sugar ??? overweight more than likely, rife in the sugar industry-lorries carrying massive over weighted loads, and falling over sideways on road cambers--everyday you would see a DEAD lorry. Greed again, so who was to blame-the river or the company ?? you guess

[endure]

The spilled sugar damaged the quality of the water because it dissolved into the river and killed many aquatic animals.

I'm not sure I buy this. I could be wrong but I don't think the sugar would kill much of anything and would dissolved, dissipate and be carried out to sea very quickly. It may have actually provided a source of food to a number of kritters in the river that survive the very polluted water. Rather than the sugar, I would think the oil, fuel and other contaminants on board would pose a more serious problem.

Bottom line ... I would like to know what and how many (estimate beyond "many") aquatic animals were killed.

It's a barge. There is no oil or fuel on board.

From pictures it looks to be self-propelled and thus will have fuel on board.

[Nisa]

I also stand corrected, at least according to news accounts, that state the problem with the sugar in the water dramatically lowered the oxygen level in the effected areas. This is supposedly what caused the fish to die. However it seems they stressed the fish that died were part of hatcheries on the water. I don't know the currents in the area but would assume this would be washed away very quickly, especially since the current seems strong there based on the reports of serious erosion taking place. I am not a chemist or marine biologist but something still doesn't jive in my mind about sugar killing off marine life in a river this wide and deep and with a generally strong flow and/or water movement.. As I recall the current may not be that strong but that water is always churning.

I don't think the sugar would have all washed away immediately. There was 2,500 tonnes of the stuff.

It would have slowly dissolved into the water over a number of days.

According to Pattaya Today (can we link to them?) 1/2 the sugar is still on the barge. Also, the barge didn't actually sink, it capsized according to news and pictures. The BKK post on the 6th mentions that "hundreds" of fish have died and again it the news only seems to report dead fish from fisheries looking to recoup money and claim loses. I haven't seen any reports of an excess of dead fish or sea creatures floating in the water or washing up on the banks.

No doubt this is a bad incident but still sounds a bit fishy to me.

1250 tonnes of sugar in that river is probably equivalent to less than a tea spoon in your tea cup with the difference being it all gets washed down stream and diluted fairly quickly and doesn't have much time to impact one area.

But I may be a bit biased in my thinking because I really couldn't understand how brown sugar could have more of an impact than the dangerous chemicals put into that river daily but initially I had no idea it could effect oxygen levels.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Nisa

[Bagwan]

I read the headline and then the first sentence and then asked myself 'WHY?" Nobody follows the rules and regulations on the country's roads so why would they on the rivers? I don't think the country's railways are a shining example either.