Boiler Safety 1

[hacksaw]

Following the explosion of a boiler, which killed two employees. The inspection was expanded to include associated contractors and ongoing maintenance activities during a turnaround operation. Investigators found violations of the process safety management standard, which requires specific management of hazards associated with processes using dangerous chemicals.

The six repeat citations were cited for failing to ensure that boiler equipment complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices; ensure operating procedures addressed consequences of deviation from operating limits, including steps to avoid deviation from operating limits; provide training at least every three years on the practice of igniting boiler burners; establish and implement written procedures for testing and inspecting the shutdown and gas train interlocks for the boiler; and implement a management of change procedure when modifying boiler operating procedures. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility within the last five years. Similar violations were cited in previous years.


The 15 serious citations include failing to ensure the process safety information includes equipment design codes and standards; failing to ensure the process hazard analysis addressed purging the boiler burner firebox; and loss of burner pilot/flame, prolonged fuel gas flow and failing to develop and implement operating procedures that address initial start-up of the boiler burner. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

 

[sshep]

Hey Hacksaw,

This is interesting news. Where did it happen- i.e. company and site? Citations against companies have some effect, but I like to see the site managers held responsible.

A few years ago I worked at a site where a distillation column was started up with a 24" blank in the overhead line after a TAR, and held at 3x MAWP for 3 days while operations looked for a blockage in the feed line (feed pump was actually deadheaded). I wanted to see the incident investigated as per our company procedures, but the executive attitude was that these kind of things happen all the time. It still rings in my ears: "people die in this business, there's nothing we can do about it." I think individual liability is the best tool to change management attitudes and behavior.

best wishes,
sshep

 

[chicopee]

Hacksaw, you have mentioned a repeat violation anything about willful violations?

 

[danw2]

Check out the $281,000 proposed penalty on the OSHA site

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=23850

 

[sshep]

Thanks danw2,

Even $281k applied to a few individuals might barely create an industry wide impact, but appied to a single refinery seems like almost nothing. This was my point in the post above. If companies can survive the cost of the accidents themselves, the fines for noncomplaince are meaningless- i think OSHA should go more often for individual liability of executives who put profit over safety.

Best wishes,
Sshep

 

[chicopee]

If the profit margin is 1%, this company has to sell $28,100,000 of product. While this math is simplified, and creative bookkeeping can cut down on the amount to sell to offset this fine, you still get the idea how expensive is.

 

[dcasto]

hacksaw, is there a question concerning operations and design? This should be posted in OSHA