- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Chemical Safety Board releases animation of fire at 2016 BR Exxon refinery
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:36 am
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:36 am
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has released a 3-minute animation describing the events leading to the November 22, 2016 fire at ExxonMobil's Baton Rouge refinery, which severely burned four workers. The fire erupted during maintenance activities in the refinery’s sulfuric acid alkylation unit.
On the day of the incident, operators attempted to open a valve on spare isobutene pump in order to put the pump into service. The valve was manually operated by a handwheel, which connected to piece of equipment called a gearbox, that contained gears used to make it easier to open and close the valve. The gearbox, however, was not working properly and the valve would not open. The operators, following accepted practice, then removed the gearbox and its support bracket from the valve.
Unknown to the operators, the valve was one of 3% of the total number of valves in the alkylation unit that were of an older design. This 30-year old design used bolts to connect the gearbox and its support bracket to the valve and also secured a critical piece of pressure-containing equipment called the top-cap. When removed, the bolts leave the top-cap disconnected and the valve vulnerable to pressure.
With the bolts and gearbox removed, and the top-cap not secured, the operators attempted to open the valve using a pipe wrench, and the valve immediately failed and came apart. Pressurized isobutane escaped from the valve, forming a flammable white vapor cloud, which likely found an energized welding machine roughly 70 feet away from the initial release, and ignited. The resulting fire seriously injured one ExxonMobil employee and three contractors working in the area.
Inspectioneering website
On the day of the incident, operators attempted to open a valve on spare isobutene pump in order to put the pump into service. The valve was manually operated by a handwheel, which connected to piece of equipment called a gearbox, that contained gears used to make it easier to open and close the valve. The gearbox, however, was not working properly and the valve would not open. The operators, following accepted practice, then removed the gearbox and its support bracket from the valve.
Unknown to the operators, the valve was one of 3% of the total number of valves in the alkylation unit that were of an older design. This 30-year old design used bolts to connect the gearbox and its support bracket to the valve and also secured a critical piece of pressure-containing equipment called the top-cap. When removed, the bolts leave the top-cap disconnected and the valve vulnerable to pressure.
With the bolts and gearbox removed, and the top-cap not secured, the operators attempted to open the valve using a pipe wrench, and the valve immediately failed and came apart. Pressurized isobutane escaped from the valve, forming a flammable white vapor cloud, which likely found an energized welding machine roughly 70 feet away from the initial release, and ignited. The resulting fire seriously injured one ExxonMobil employee and three contractors working in the area.
Inspectioneering website
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 9:39 am
15
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:42 am to Tigeralum2008
Dang that video explains it perfectly.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:45 am to Tigeralum2008
I've seen plenty of incident videos and that was probably the best detailed animated one I've seen.
3% chance. Damn.
3% chance. Damn.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:45 am to SG_Geaux
CSB videos are great at explaining incident investigations.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:48 am to Tigeralum2008
Thanks for posting that. Very cool.
A shame that the positioning of a mere support bracket could've prevented that from happening. I deal with sulphuric acid and hydrofluoric acid in our business and man o' man, that's some nasty stuff.
A shame that the positioning of a mere support bracket could've prevented that from happening. I deal with sulphuric acid and hydrofluoric acid in our business and man o' man, that's some nasty stuff.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 9:48 am to Tigeralum2008
As an employee of the industrial field, I've learned that not a ton of companies put an emphasis on replacing old equipment. Even the company I work for has issues with old faulty equipment. (Thankfully, where I work isn't exactly hazardous as far as product).
These companies make billions, hand over fist and preach safety safety safety, but in turn they fail to be proactive when it comes to their equipment. They prefer to be reactive and "save money." While in the long run, they'll lose money on the back end when the unit is down.
"Run it until it breaks" (then have meetings on top of meetings to determine how we can do better) seems to be the common denominator in a lot of places.
These companies make billions, hand over fist and preach safety safety safety, but in turn they fail to be proactive when it comes to their equipment. They prefer to be reactive and "save money." While in the long run, they'll lose money on the back end when the unit is down.
"Run it until it breaks" (then have meetings on top of meetings to determine how we can do better) seems to be the common denominator in a lot of places.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 9:51 am
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:02 am to Tigeralum2008
Sounds like it would be a good idea to hire some old timers who installed restalled much of the plant works decades ago to review old and new plans.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:02 am to Tigeralum2008
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/12/20 at 5:12 am
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:06 am to Tigeralum2008
One of the contractors injured is a guy I know pretty well. He was on a scaffold working a different job when it happened. The welding machine they were using for their job was the ignition source for the vapor cloud. He spent a while in the hospital but is lucky to be alive. Just goes to show how quick these things happen.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:06 am to Prominentwon
quote:
As an employee of the industrial field, I've learned that not a ton of companies put an emphasis on replacing old equipment. Even the company I work for has issues with old faulty equipment. (Thankfully, where I work isn't exactly hazardous as far as product).
These companies make billions, hand over fist and preach safety safety safety, but in turn they fail to be proactive when it comes to their equipment. They prefer to be reactive and "save money." While in the long run, they'll lose money on the back end when the unit is down.
"Run it until it breaks" (then have meetings on top of meetings to determine how we can do better) seems to be the common denominator in a lot of places.
We see this a lot in the paper industry with valves and piping in the chemical areas and other critical components of their machinery, but some are too cheap to update their equipment until something fails and then want to bitch and moan about the downtime it takes to get it fixed.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:10 am to Perrydawg
quote:
We see this a lot in the paper industry
They are notorious for that
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:11 am to Tigeralum2008
That animation is top notch. I'm sure a few posters on this board will be here soon to ensure us that this animation is fake news. They'll insist that Exxon workers have never made mistakes before.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:13 am to Tigeralum2008
This is the example of why a blowout proof stem is so important. Also mounting a gear box to the packing gland is a big no-no these days.
Source - I sell valves.
Source - I sell valves.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:25 am to ShoeBang
Common sense would tell you to put the bolts back in before operating the valve. We have problems with these plug type valves daily.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:30 am to jmh5724
Common sense isn't so common anymore
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:30 am to jmh5724
quote:
Common sense would tell you to put the bolts back in before operating the valve. We have problems with these plug type valves daily.
While I agree with your sentiment, expecting someone to have common sense in a dangerous situation like that is inviting trouble.
We beg our customers to inspect old valves and replace for safety reasons all the time.
30 years from now, people will look back at what we are selling today and cry about how dangerous it was vs the new technology they have.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:37 am to PaperPaintball92
quote:
That animation is top notch. I'm sure a few posters on this board will be here soon to ensure us that this animation is fake news. They'll insist that Exxon workers have never made mistakes before.
This animation is exactly what happened. I think you're still butt hurt because you got called out for your false accounts of the fire at HCLA you thought you knew so much about.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:41 am to JonTheTigerFan
quote:
false accounts of the fire at HCLA
Oh, so now the fire never happened?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:46 am to Perrydawg
I am no Engineer or Operator but I can easily look at that valve (I assume the video is accurate) and see that removing those four bolts is a bad idea while the line is under pressure. Much less attempting to operate the valve with the bolts removed. Shocked either of those guys saw that.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:48 am to Tigeralum2008
Honest question, because I don't know shite about plants: Whose fault was the fire? Exxon? The Operators?
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News