On September 5, 2023, at approximately 7:30 p.m., an accidental release of butadiene vapor occurred inside a decanting tank (“tank”). The butadiene vapors ignited, resulting in a fire that seriously injured one employee. The incident occurred in a latex production area during a maintenance shutdown. Employees were tasked with removing an internal part (a “baffle”) […]
On May 4, 2023, at 6:25 a.m., approximately 790 pounds of a hydrocarbon mixture containing about 7,000 parts per million (ppm) of hydrogen sulfide were accidentally released at a Refinery. Exposure to the toxic hydrogen sulfide vapor seriously injured one employee. The facility’s investigation found that, on the day of the incident, pressure in a
On Friday, February 3, 2023, at approximately 10:46 p.m., a flash fire was accidentally released from a product purge vessel (“vessel”) flange during planned maintenance activities. The fire seriously injured four (4) contract workers. On January 29, 2023, the facility shut down its polyethylene unit for planned maintenance. Following the shutdown procedure, operators purged and
Respondent operated a facility that utilizes chlorine for its aluminum smelting process for use primarily in the automotive and aerospace industries. On June 6, 2023, EPA performed an inspection ofthe Facility to evaluate compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Section 103, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act EPCRA Sections 304-312, and
On September 22, 2022, at approximately 9:00 a.m., a liquid mixture comprised of aniline, formalin, and hydrochloric acid was accidentally released, seriously injuring one contractor at a chemical manufacturing facility in Geismar, Louisiana. On September 20, 2022, two days before the incident, an off-site power outage caused an immediate loss of process flow into the
On October 1, 2020, at approximately 9:00 a.m., approximately 554 pounds of chlorine gas were accidentally released. Exposure to the toxic chlorine vapors seriously injured one employee. At the time of the incident, four (4) workers (two unit employees and two contractors) were trying to stop a chlorine leak (described as a fugitive emission) from
At the time of the event, contract workers were disassembling a 2-inch flange to remove a blind (a solid metal plate used to isolate equipment) before reinstalling a section of piping that had been removed and cleaned. This type of equipment opening is commonly referred to as a “line opening” or “performing a line break.”
Scenario: Employees bring rechargeable lithium-ion batteries from home to the workplace for use in e-cigarettes, which are not used in any equipment or devices related to their work duties. You also state that, in this scenario, the battery terminals are unprotected and the employee or employees improperly carry these batteries in their pants pocket, a
In some processes, there is ALWAYS a need to “leak test” before returning a segment of piping to service. These “leak test” pressures are done at NORMAL Operating pressures using a calibrated solution such as SNOOP. And every once in a while, I get a question about doing a “leak test” at some really low
There are limitations on even the best “bubble solutions” used for “leak testing. My favorite is SNOOPS, and as I indicated in the title, even it has limitations. There are two (2) different types of SNOOPS:
The old question… Do we need to pressure-test and leak-test our piping after we breach the pressure boundary? My response is always YES; however, the International Gas Code says something very different. Can we apply this approach to ASME B31.3 piping?
