Public Administration Case Study: The Blast In Centralia
public administration
admin | October 22, 2013
public administration
Based on the case study by Martin, The Blast in Centralia No. 5, in Stillman, PA, Chapter 1, write a 3-4 page paper in which you: 1.Identify and explain four (4) logistical alternatives Scanlan could have addressed. 2.Analyze and discuss Scanlan’s motivation toward the Constitution (the law), bureaucracy (as a public administrator responsible to the public), and obligation. 3.Take a position on two (2) possible paths of action for Scanlan and defend your choices. 4.Research and cite at least four (4) peer-reviewed academic sources. Your assignment must:
•Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; …show more content…
In 1941, the governor also appointed Driscoll Scanlan, recommended by his state representative, as one of the states 16 mine inspectors (Martin, 1948). Scanlan was the inspector of the district that included Centralia Mine No. 5. Scanlan inspected the mine several times in the years before the explosion. He made a report of each inspection and sent them to the Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals. In many of these reports, he noted that the mine was highly explosive due to coal dust buildup. Robert Weir, assistant director for the Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, received and processed his reports. Weir signed a letter for each inspection that identified issues, provided recommendations and requested a response from the company. In 1942, Frank Prez, a mine inspector from the U.S. Bureau of Mines, conducted a federal inspection of Centralia Mine No. 5. His findings and recommendations were similar to Scanlan’s. Prez also noted the mine was highly explosive (Martin, …show more content…
Bureau of Mines conducted an investigation into the explosion. In 47 pages, the investigation team explained the circumstances of the explosion. The team found that “the explosion was localized and confined to four working sections of the mine. However, the two remaining sections into which the explosion failed to propagate were affected by afterdamp. The explosion failed to propagate further in every instance when it reached or as it approached the rock-dusted zones on the entries.” In particular, the finding that the propagation of the explosion stopped when it reached rock-dusted zones supports the inspectors, identifying rock-dusting as the control measure for dusty conditions (Bureau of Mines, 1947). As for an ignition source, “The investigation team believed the only possible ignition sources present at the faces at the time of the explosion were the open lights of the shot firers, a few others and the detonation of explosions.” To further support the investigation team’s belief that explosives ignited the coal dust, they found “indications that the top right shot in Face 1 was under burdened. This was evidenced by the shot not pulling down all the coal as in normal
admin | October 22, 2013
public administration
Based on the case study by Martin, The Blast in Centralia No. 5, in Stillman, PA, Chapter 1, write a 3-4 page paper in which you: 1.Identify and explain four (4) logistical alternatives Scanlan could have addressed. 2.Analyze and discuss Scanlan’s motivation toward the Constitution (the law), bureaucracy (as a public administrator responsible to the public), and obligation. 3.Take a position on two (2) possible paths of action for Scanlan and defend your choices. 4.Research and cite at least four (4) peer-reviewed academic sources. Your assignment must:
•Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; …show more content…
In 1941, the governor also appointed Driscoll Scanlan, recommended by his state representative, as one of the states 16 mine inspectors (Martin, 1948). Scanlan was the inspector of the district that included Centralia Mine No. 5. Scanlan inspected the mine several times in the years before the explosion. He made a report of each inspection and sent them to the Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals. In many of these reports, he noted that the mine was highly explosive due to coal dust buildup. Robert Weir, assistant director for the Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, received and processed his reports. Weir signed a letter for each inspection that identified issues, provided recommendations and requested a response from the company. In 1942, Frank Prez, a mine inspector from the U.S. Bureau of Mines, conducted a federal inspection of Centralia Mine No. 5. His findings and recommendations were similar to Scanlan’s. Prez also noted the mine was highly explosive (Martin, …show more content…
Bureau of Mines conducted an investigation into the explosion. In 47 pages, the investigation team explained the circumstances of the explosion. The team found that “the explosion was localized and confined to four working sections of the mine. However, the two remaining sections into which the explosion failed to propagate were affected by afterdamp. The explosion failed to propagate further in every instance when it reached or as it approached the rock-dusted zones on the entries.” In particular, the finding that the propagation of the explosion stopped when it reached rock-dusted zones supports the inspectors, identifying rock-dusting as the control measure for dusty conditions (Bureau of Mines, 1947). As for an ignition source, “The investigation team believed the only possible ignition sources present at the faces at the time of the explosion were the open lights of the shot firers, a few others and the detonation of explosions.” To further support the investigation team’s belief that explosives ignited the coal dust, they found “indications that the top right shot in Face 1 was under burdened. This was evidenced by the shot not pulling down all the coal as in normal