- 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 2:32 pm to fightin tigers
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:32 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
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.
Not really disagreeing with you there as I don't know too much about valves, but if you have only 3% of your valves with a different configuration, you better damn well identify it as such and do so in a very conspicuous way. Especially if your "accepted procedure" is obviously geared toward the 97%. You can't have a universal procedure when your equipment isn't the same. That valve needed to be tagged or identified as different from the rest.
2
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:38 pm to Tigeralum2008
We used to watch those videos in PTEC school and do root cause analysis exercises. I actually really enjoy those videos.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:40 pm to upgrayedd
I don't know if there would be a procedure in place that describes in as much detail to distinguish the slight difference in these valves.
Likely there was an alternative way to remove the actuator without removing the bracket though.
Likely there was an alternative way to remove the actuator without removing the bracket though.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:44 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
I don't know if there would be a procedure in place that describes in as much detail to distinguish the slight difference in these valves.
Right, which is why it should have been tagged. But I think the difference between the mounting bracket being on the valve vs mounted on a flange is more than a "slight difference".
The point is that the valve should've been identified as different given it's rarity inside the unit.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:52 pm to upgrayedd
quote:there's all kinds of valves. They're not all the same. We stress this all the time; when you're working and conditions/work plan changes you need to step back and do a hazard assessment. The valve wasn't the issue
Not really disagreeing with you there as I don't know too much about valves, but if you have only 3% of your valves with a different configuration, you better damn well identify it as such and do so in a very conspicuous way. Especially if your "accepted procedure" is obviously geared toward the 97%. You can't have a universal procedure when your equipment isn't the same. That valve needed to be tagged or identified as different from the rest.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:56 pm to jmh5724
quote:
Chemical Safety Board releases animation of fire at 2016 BR Exxon refinery by jmh5724 Both. Exxon should replace outdated equipment. Operators need to use common sense.
I disagree. Exxon should not allow for a 3% total of older valves like that to be left in service. Is that not the reason 97% were upgraded? For safety?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:58 pm to castorinho
quote:
The valve wasn't the issue
I never said it was. Goddamn, can y'all not read?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:07 pm to Tshiz
quote:
I disagree. Exxon should not allow for a 3% total of older valves like that to be left in service. Is that not the reason 97% were upgraded? For safety?
The valve itself was not unsafe. The action to remove the gear shaft assembly was. The design of the valve and assembly was old but in normal operation it works safely. As others have said when the valve wouldn't operate properly, they should have stopped and got others involved. At that point the line should have been isolated, cleared, and tagged out to safely do the work.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:19 pm to jmh5724
quote:
Operators need to use common sense.
They don't teach that in P-Tech class.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:21 pm to Tshiz
quote:probably not. Probably has more to do with the fact that changing the gear box in this style requires downtime.
Is that not the reason 97% were upgraded? For safety?
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:39 pm to Tshiz
quote:
I disagree. Exxon should not allow for a 3% total of older valves like that to be left in service. Is that not the reason 97% were upgraded? For safety
Not likely for safety. The valve wasn't unsafe.
They were likely upgraded to new valves because they no longer make the model when they needed new valves
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:52 pm to PaperPaintball92
quote:
You're a fricking liar.
What exactly am I lying about? I am telling you with 100% certainty that the cause of the fire in December 2015 wasn't what you said it was. You even said they turned you around at the gate that day and never told y'all what happened. Well I didn't get turned around and saw exactly what happened.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:58 pm to JonTheTigerFan
quote:
I don't have to explain to you how it happened
quote:
What exactly am I lying about?
quote:
saw exactly what happened.
Why can't you just explain it? If it wasn't neglect on Exxon's fault, then why are you so fast to defend the accident?
quote:
You even said they turned you around at the gate that day and never told y'all what happened
Exxon (as a company) never told us anything. You don't think people at the plant talk about this kind of stuff?
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 4:10 pm to PaperPaintball92
quote:.
Exxon (as a company) never told us anything. You don't think people at the plant talk about this kind of stuff?
I know they do. I'm just letting you know it was misinformation. There was no leak prior to the incident. There was no indication or warning. Luckily it happened when only operations was there and nobody was in the area when it happened.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 4:39 pm to JonTheTigerFan
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 4:44 pm to PaperPaintball92
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 4:48 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 4:47 pm to JonTheTigerFan
j
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 4:47 pm to autauga
In a portion of the animation, the wrench was indeed being shown as used wrongly. In the portion where the operator was turning the valve, it was correct
Posted on 7/27/17 at 5:15 pm to Icansee4miles
What the frick do you know about using a wrench?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 5:17 pm to JonTheTigerFan
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/12/20 at 5:11 am
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News