|
|
November 22, 2004 Explosion Causes SLC
Chemical Spill
An explosion at Thatcher Chemical in Salt Lake City, Utah, ruptured a
storage tank, spilling more than 36,000 litres (9,000 US gallons) of
sodium tri-thiocarbonate and forcing the evacuation of about 20 employees.
The explosion occurred as a worker was pumping a shipment of sodium tri-thiocarbonate
into a storage tank. A spokesman for the Salt Lake City Fire Department
said investigators were unsure what caused the explosion, which witnesses
described as a loud pop and a brief flash of light, adding: “It’s
difficult to understand what happened because this isn’t a flammable
product. Something malfunctioned in the pumping system, or maybe in the
air system.” He reportedly said that sodium tri-thiocarbonate is “a
non-flammable liquid chemical used in mining”. The man pumping the
chemical was exposed to the liquid, but was not injured. The explosion
severed the main line to the plant’s sprinkler system and tens of
thousands of litres of water spilled from the line and mixed with the
chemical for more than a half hour before the line could be closed. None
of the spilled chemical reached public drains or sewer lines.
On November 24 a representative of the Utah Division of Water Quality
reportedly said that the tens of thousands of litres of water and the
sodium tri-thiocarbonate overwhelmed Thatcher’s closed water system,
overflowing into a dirt area and near some railroad tracks.
December 12, 2004 One Killed, Several Burned in LPG Explosion
Five hundred LPG cylinders exploded at a distributorship, killing one
person and seriously burning several other workers in Tierra Colorada
(near Acapulco) Mexico. The Acapulco Civil Protection Director said the 20
- and 30-kilogram (45- and 70-pound) cylinders had been loaded onto four
delivery trucks, which were destroyed in the explosion. A local official
said it appeared the workers were dragging a gas tank when it exploded,
starting a chain reaction with the other cylinders. Several workers were
hospitalised with third-degree burns. At least 3,000 litres (800 US
gallons) of gas stored at the site were not affected. It took fire
fighters and rescue officials from several surrounding cities about three
hours to control the fire.
December 3, 2004 Explosion and Fire Causes Evacuation in Houston
Several explosions occurred and a major fire broke out at a Marcus Oil and
Chemcial wax plant in Houston, TX. The Houston Fire Department evacuated
residents in a four-block area east of the plant and issued a
shelter-in-place order as a precaution. Seven nearby residents sought
hospital treatment for minor injuries. Five of those injuries occurred at
a church across the street from the plant, and some of the injuries were
described as “emotional distress”. Houston fire officials said they
expected the blaze would have no effects on the city’s air quality.
The initial explosion, which occurred around 18:00, was heard as far as 20
miles away. No serious injuries were reported, but two fire-fighters
suffered minor injuries, including one who slipped on hot wax that had
poured out of the warehouse and covered a nearby parking lot. He tried to
stop his fall and burned his hand on the wax. The other fire-fighter
sprained his back. The District Fire Chief said he did not think the fire
was suspicious, but preliminary investigations were hampered by a
“language barrier” with employees at the plant. He said large pressurised
tanks exploded and the fire spread to a large storage warehouse, which
burned for at least four hours, adding: “We haven’t been told by Haz-Mat
or from the owners that there is any chemicals in the place that would
cause issues with air pollution.” A plant worker said he believed a tank
containing wax came under too much pressure, saying: “We were working and
we heard something explode. We don’t know what exactly happened. We heard
the noise and the fire department came in and sent us all out.” The
company manufactures a range of polyethylene waxes used in a variety of
products, including paints, asphalt, polishes, printing inks and
high-gloss fruit coatings. Abbas Hassan, one of the plant’s owners, said
finished wax was stored in the warehouse.
Later reports said that investigators had established that a failure
occurred in a tank of polyethylene, but did not yet know what started the
fire. Mr Hassan reportedly said: “It was an empty tank that exploded. We
don’t know anything else at this point. Our gut feeling is that lightning
struck it. I don’t think it was done on purpose.” He said the tank that
exploded was filled with nitrogen under pressure. The tank can hold about
150,000 litres (40,000 US gallons) of wax, but had only a few centimetres
of the liquid in it at the time of the incident. Commenting on the
lightning theory, the District Fire Chief was reported as saying: “I
wouldn’t rule it out. There was rain going through the area, and
explosions happen when lightning strikes gas tanks.” On December 6
investigators with the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) said their
investigation was focusing on one tank inside the plant.
December 6, 2004 Five Injured in Fire at Chemical Plant
Five people were injured in a fire at a Knoll SA chemical plant in Liestal,
France. According to police, fire-fighters were called after a machine
caught fire in a production area for pharmaceutical intermediates. Two
persons were burned, one seriously, and three fire-fighters were
hospitalised for smoke inhalation.
December 22, 2004 Pipeline Explosion Injures Five, Hundreds Evacuated
in Mexico
An explosion ruptured a Pemex crude oil pipeline in Veracruz Mexico,
injuring five people and forcing hundreds from their homes. State oil
monopoly Pemex said in a statement that oil flow at the pipeline near the
port of Coatzacoalcos was cut off after the explosion, which was caused by
“overpressure in a pump station in a rural area”. Television pictures
showed oil covering the ground and pouring into the Coatzacoalcos river,
but the company said it was unaware of any major spillage. Pemex has
already had to compensate landowners in Veracruz for a spill of roughly
10,000 barrels of oil in October from a ruptured pipeline.
On December 23 the Mexican EPA said Pemex will be fined more than $200,000
as a result of the incident, which caused 5,000 barrels of crude oil to
spill into a river and the Gulf of Mexico, where local beaches were
affected. The EPA also plans to file a criminal complaint against Pemex
for the environmental damage the spill appeared to have caused. According
to later reports, an explosion occurred on a 600mm (24 inch) pipeline at a
pumping station near Santiago Tuxtla, about 420km (250 miles)
east-southeast of Mexico City. The blast caused a high pressure pulse that
ruptured the pipeline 120km (70 miles) away in Nanchital, just south of
the oil port city of Coatzacoalcos. An official from the Veracruz state
environmental department said that 800,000 litres (210,000 US gallons or
about 5,000 barrels) of oil from the spill flowed into the Coatzacoalcos
River, creating a slick 17km (10 miles) long that extended into the Gulf.
Later on December 23, a slightly different story emerged. The director of
the environmental protection division of Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex)
Refinacion reportedly said that 10,000 barrels of crude oil had spilled
into the Coatzacoalcos River and had washed down the river all the way to
the Tepeyac arroyo, some 120km (75 miles) from the site of the accident at
the Masuniapan pumping station in the municipality of Santiago Tuxtla. The
spill occurred in Nanchital municipality shortly after Pemex closed the
valves on its 750mm (30-inch) pipeline used for transporting crude from
Nuevo Oteapan to Poza Rica. He explained that when the valves were shut
off, the pressure in the pipeline built up, causing it to burst and
releasing the crude.
On Dec. 28 the federal environmental prosecutor’s office said it had filed
a criminal complaint against Pemex. Environmental prosecutors said they
have been inspecting the cleanup from the start and have ordered Pemex to
deliver a damage assessment and detailed report on the causes of the
spill.
December 29, 2004 Three killed, Three Injured in Chemical Plant
Explosion in China
Three people were killed and three others injured in an explosion at a
chemical plant in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province in China. Local police said
the accident occurred when the workers were welding a pipeline containing
polyurethane. Polyurethane vapours immediately ignited, causing a big fire
and the explosion of two “huge cans”.
January 26, 2005 Gas Explosion Injures 14 in S. Africa
A gas explosion at Sasol’s Natref plant in South Africa injured at least
14 workers (17, according to trade union sources). A Sasol spokesman said
the explosion was caused by a gas leak at the hydrofluoric acid plant. The
incident occurred during a shutdown, after the leak had been detected. The
injured were taken to hospital, where nine were treated and discharged and
the rest were being kept for observation. The trade union Solidarity said
it was to meet with Sasol management to discuss the incident. A Solidarity
spokesman said in a statement: “We are seriously concerned about the
pattern of accidents in Sasol. We will now aggressively seek for a
solution on a national level.”
On January 27 the Solidarity trade union said it had agreed to be part of
the internal investigation following the explosion. A Solidarity spokesman
said: “The factual similarities between the September explosion [See HInt
04-09, 040901-01] and the one that took place yesterday [January 26] are
highly disturbing. In both instances, contractors were doing maintenance
work on pipes and this gave rise to gas leaks. The part played by
contractors in most of the accidents gives us cause for concern and this
issue will certainly be discussed at the high-level meeting. Other matters
to be discussed relate to the workload of Sasol workers and the fact that
the workload leads to excessive overtime being worked. We believe that
many Sasol workers are overworked and morale is low.”
Also on January 27, Labour Minister Membathisi Mdladlana said he had
instructed a high level investigation into the cause of the explosion,
saying in a press statement: “It is suspected that one of the seals on one
of the pumps detached, leading to an HF-gas cloud that ignited. At this
stage it is not known what caused the ignition.
February 4, 2005 Leaking Water Pipe Causes Sulphuric Acid Tank Collapse
Thirteen persons, three of them Kemira employees, were hospitalised with
eye and respiratory irritation after about 11,000 tons of sulphuric acid
leaked from a collapsed tank at a Kemira chemicals plant in Sweden. All
patients left the hospital later that same morning. According to a
statement by Kemira to HInt, the accident was caused by the failure of a
cooling water pipeline, running underground near the sulphuric acid tank.
Water forced its way out of the pipe, eroding the ground near and round
the sulphuric acid tank. This erosion damaged the ground under the tank
and the protection basin round the tank resulting in a rupture of the
tank. Sulphuric acid leaked out of the storage tank into to the protection
basin which then over-flowed because it was filled with water from the
broken pipeline.
The acid leaked into the nearby bay, causing a cloud of sulphuric acid
vapour to form over the water. Fire-fighters diluted and dispersed the
cloud with water spray. A shelter-in-place was ordered. Police said the
port area was closed off and all traffic, including ferries, stopped. An
area within one kilometre of the plant remained closed until the evening
of February 6 as local authorities wanted to make sure that another
sulphuric tank near the first tank was not damaged in the accident.
The Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat published a large photograph of
the collapsed tank, which shows all the signs of having collapsed inwards:
the roof had clearly fallen inwards and two areas of the tank wall were
also bowed inwards. Such a collapse would be consistent with a tank
collapsing under air pressure after a blocked vent allowed a partial
vacuum to develop during unloading, but could also have occurred if the
base beneath the tank collapsed, or if the tank ruptured near its base and
the vents were not able to cope with a rapid outflow.
Sources and Disclaimer:
AcuSafe's Incident News Summary is primarily compiled from Reuters and AP
news wires, and from information shared on the U.S. Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board Chemical Incident Reports Center. Sources for
incidents also include Hazards Intelligence – an international journal of
hazardous incidents- available for subscription at
http://www.saunalahti.fi/ility/.
An effort has
been made to summarize stories only from reputable sources, but neither AcuSafe nor AcuTech Consulting can guarantee the accuracy of the story,
nor do they necessarily reflect the views of AcuTech, AcuSafe, and its
staff. We make no effort to independently corroborate the accuracy of the
incident news stories.
AcuSafe is a presentation of
AcuTech Consulting,
©2002, All Rights Reserved
|
