Most of us have seen a gate valve installed in piping, and 99% of the time, we want to see the valve handle in the VERTICAL-UPWARD position. However, when we need to install an “intervening valve” in the relief path, which ASME allows, we may/should see the valve handle(s) in the Horizontal or below Horizontal […]
ASME has allowed dual PRD systems ever since I started in process safety back in 1993. These systems usually have a Rupture Disc (RD) BEFORE the Pressure Safety Valve (PSV). This is usually done to protect the more expensive and more complicated PSV from the corrosive process gases. Although I never managed a PR system
A soft drink manufacturer had a 3-ton capacity carbon dioxide (CO2) receiver tank at the plant. The tank contained 2000 pounds on the day of the explosion. The establishment was evacuated due to flooding river waters in the area. The plant was secured and evacuated. No employees were at the workplace. Suddenly, the storage tank
“Why did they have a Rupture Disc and a Relief Valve together?” As I alluded to in my post regarding CBS’s update, this arrangement is fairly common but comes with some very SPECIFIC requirements. These requirements can be found in: But the top four (4) requirements, we as safety engineers should be looking for in
I have upload my REVISED Car Seal Program and the PowerPoint that goes with it to the Document Library – Chemical Process Safety folder.
I have these debates on a regular basis: ” We can not put an isolation valve before or after a Pressure Relief Device (PRD).” And that would be an incorrect statement. Yes, placing an “intervening valve” in a PRD path (before or after the PRD) can be risky; however, in some situations, these valves are
I have spent my career working with flammable liquids, and those who have followed my writings on the topic understand why I have stopped using 1910.106 as my baseline flammable liquid safety standard and instead began using either the IFC or NFPA 30. I have been involved in several serious events where atmospheric storage tanks
Last week, we saw the devastation of a catastrophic failure of a pressure vessel (PV) in Louisville, KY. We still do not know the cause of this failure, just that it was a “cook vessel #6. SAFTENG members can see my breakdown of the photographic evidence available from the Courrier Journal (local Louisville newspaper). But
ATF Louisville said it has definitively identified the origin of last week’s deadly plant explosion. The investigation led them to the origin of the explosion: Cooking Vessel No. 6 on the South side of the facility. They can say that the vessel failed definitively… it was likely an issue with overpressurization. Some of that vessel
