- 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
re: Chemical Safety Board releases animation of fire at 2016 BR Exxon refinery
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:44 pm to fightin tigers
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:44 pm to fightin tigers
quote:Yep. They most likely have done this with the upgraded valves a bunch of times and were on autopilot while removing the bolts. Unfortunate, but that's why you have to take a step back and evaluate what you're doing before you do it when working with shite that can kill you
They took the bonnet bolts off the fricking valve. Then tried to operate it. This is operator training 101.
0
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:48 pm to jmh5724
quote:
Exxon should replace outdated equipment.
Older does not mean outdated.
Older does not mean dangerous.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:54 pm to Jester
quote:
3% is not the norm, but it's also not some unicorn that nobody has ever seen. Like others have said, it's pretty obvious that you're removing important bolts.
You would think, but it obviously wasn't obvious enough. Just seems that you would have it boldly identified especially if a "accepted procedure" of the unit was to remove the gearbox from the valve. That combined with such a large percentage of the valves without the same hazards was a really bad combination.
Everyone knows that the first line of defense in safety is proper engineering.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 12:55 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Everyone knows that the first line of defense in safety is proper engineering.
What? No it isn't.
To be clear, it is extremely important, but properly engineering is nothing without operational safety
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:04 pm to JonTheTigerFan
quote:
, I don't have to explain to you how it happened
I'm sure nobody knew that the valve in the animation was outdated either.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:05 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
What? No it isn't.
To be clear, it is extremely important, but properly engineering is nothing without operational safety
Well then all the HAZWOPER, OSHA, and MSHA training I've taken over the last decade is wrong.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:06 pm to upgrayedd
Engineer it right doesn't mean it is the first line of defense.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:08 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Engineer it right doesn't mean it is the first line of defense.
I mean engineering in the sense of things like safety barriers, mechanical guards, and hazard notices.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:10 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Older does not mean outdated
They came out with new gearbox brackets because the manufacturer realized that bolting it to the bonnet is not the best method. I'm sure they've been through several turnarounds since the new brackets came out.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:12 pm to jmh5724
Give up, jmh. This goes back to my OP in this thread. Exxon will make excuses until they're blue in the face. Contractor do make lots of mistakes. So does exxon. Exxon just can't/won't admit it.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:13 pm to fightin tigers
No but according to the OSHA Hierarchy of Controls
Elimination/Substitution
Engineering Controls
Administrative/Work Practice Controls
PPE
Obviously you cannot eliminate the hazard that is presented
so your first line of defense is to engineer it out
I am not disagreeing with you I am just stating that Engineering it correctly is the first line of defense.
Most companies put safety ahead of all other metrics, but it is few and far between which companies practice what they preach.
Elimination/Substitution
Engineering Controls
Administrative/Work Practice Controls
PPE
Obviously you cannot eliminate the hazard that is presented
so your first line of defense is to engineer it out
I am not disagreeing with you I am just stating that Engineering it correctly is the first line of defense.
Most companies put safety ahead of all other metrics, but it is few and far between which companies practice what they preach.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:15 pm to Perrydawg
I'm assuming any lawsuits regarding this settled out of court. No way Exxon or anyone being sued want that video played to a jury, regardless of if they thought the workers should have known not to take off the four bolts.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:16 pm to jmh5724
quote:
They came out with new gearbox brackets because the manufacturer realized that bolting it to the bonnet is not the best method.
Not because of this type of incident though.
Bonnet bolts are still on almost every valve.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:17 pm to MAROON
quote:
I'm assuming any lawsuits regarding this settled out of court. No way Exxon or anyone being sued want that video played to a jury, regardless of if they thought the workers should have known not to take off the four bolts.
CSB gives no fricks about lawsuits pending.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:23 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I mean engineering in the sense of things like safety barriers, mechanical guards, and hazard notices.
Engineering barriers, gotcha.
I still don't think this valve was engineered wrong though. I'm not sure what type of barriers could have been in place when two operators decide to start dismantling an in service piece of equipment.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:23 pm to fightin tigers
Just rewatched the video. The gearbox should have been able to be removed by taking the side bolts out. The 4 bonnet bolts just mounts the bracket itself. Our biggest rule we tell all new hires is if you're not sure then ask. Isn't Exxon a union plant? Most union facilities would require maintenance to remove it.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:25 pm to JonTheTigerFan
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 1:32 pm to jmh5724
quote:
The gearbox should have been able to be removed by taking the side bolts out.
If you look at the video this is what it depicts.
Removing the bonnet bolts to get the bracket off is a bad idea, but the guys doing the work should have known this.
You can't engineer out reckless ignorance.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:18 pm to PaperPaintball92
quote:
You're a fricking liar.
You two just need to snugglerub and get it over with.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:24 pm to Tigeralum2008
The only way that these bolts could be removed is if the pressure had been taken off the line. So if there was another design there would be another step to take the pressure off that wasn't followed. I don't work in this field but I have seen 2 or 3 different apparatuses that do the same job and have different operating procedures. It can get real stupid real fast.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News