ITC Deer Park
71,411 Views |
513 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by suburban cowboy
Saw yesterday coming over the Fred Hartman. They will be lucky to keep it to 7 tanks at this point.
I saw it was up to 8 tanks now
Quote:
Lindsey Henry FOX 26
47 mins
We've just now been told an 8th tank has caught fire. This one contains Toluene which is a chemical found in nail polish remover, glue and paint thinner. FOX 26 Houston
One tank of naphtha burns on a Sunday... shelter in place! 8 tanks, including Toluene, burn on a Monday morning... open for biz!
Consequences of no foam suppression system on the tank.
Consequences of no foam suppression system on the tank.
Curious if anyone in the know know's how much benzene is in tank at ITC and the proximity of those tanks to the fire?
Ferris Wheel Allstar
Joined:
Mar 19, 2006
Posts:
24,805
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have a couple million in equipment there, hopefully not near the tanks. Fire pics are from yesterday, smoke is from today.
Can certainly smell it here at UH
From my office just W of Memorial Park
Milwaukees Best Light
Joined:
Nov 1, 2007
Posts:
16,436
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I had guys in Exxon on Saturday. Thankfully they left about 45 minutes before it caught on fire.
Wonder what plant is next? My money is on PRSI.
Wonder what plant is next? My money is on PRSI.
Ferris Wheel Allstar
Joined:
Mar 19, 2006
Posts:
24,805
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PRSI and/or Lyondell Houston are easily the 2 most dangerous plants in our vicinity.Milwaukees Best Light said:
I had guys in Exxon on Saturday. Thankfully they left about 45 minutes before it caught on fire.
Wonder what plant is next? My money is on PRSI.
I heard that they lost the whole section of the tank farm which I believe is South of Tidal Rd
The Aggie number specified has already been linked with another TexAgs account.
No homo, but is this sh** safe to breathe???
probably not!
The reaction to this has been strange to me.
The early reports (yesterday) were that ITC was coming up with a plan. YOU DIDN'T HAVE A FIRE PLAN IN PLACE ALREADY?!! WTF?!!
Now, they decide to just let it burn itself out. Oooookay? Seems less than healthy for everyone and also an environmental hazard. Oh, and YOU GET SOME TOLUENE, AND YOU GET SOME TOLUENE, EVERYBODY GETS SOME TOLUENE!! WTF?!!
Why were there no foam suppression systems on the tanks?
How did this whole thing start in the first place? Seems you'd want to really watch your P's and Q's around these particular chemicals.
The early reports (yesterday) were that ITC was coming up with a plan. YOU DIDN'T HAVE A FIRE PLAN IN PLACE ALREADY?!! WTF?!!
Now, they decide to just let it burn itself out. Oooookay? Seems less than healthy for everyone and also an environmental hazard. Oh, and YOU GET SOME TOLUENE, AND YOU GET SOME TOLUENE, EVERYBODY GETS SOME TOLUENE!! WTF?!!
Why were there no foam suppression systems on the tanks?
How did this whole thing start in the first place? Seems you'd want to really watch your P's and Q's around these particular chemicals.
CDUB98 said:
The reaction to this has been strange to me.
The early reports (yesterday) were that ITC was coming up with a plan. YOU DIDN'T HAVE A FIRE PLAN IN PLACE ALREADY?!! WTF?!!
Now, they decide to just let it burn itself out. Oooookay? Seems less than healthy for everyone and also an environmental hazard. Oh, and YOU GET SOME TOLUENE, AND YOU GET SOME TOLUENE, EVERYBODY GETS SOME TOLUENE!! WTF?!!
Why were there no foam suppression systems on the tanks?
How did this whole thing start in the first place? Seems you'd want to really watch your P's and Q's around these particular chemicals.
They have a fire plan, and probably very sophisticated contingency plans. That is required by regulation and audited by the USCG among other regulatory entities.
Problem is, when you have 200+ tanks, no matter how much training or planning you do, you cannot prepare for every scenario.
There were no foam suppression systems on the tanks because it is not currently a requirement. I'd expect this to change at some point.
How did it happen? It will take months to investigate and I would think the Chemical Safety Board will be heavily involved.
I heard pump seal failure
The Aggie number specified has already been linked with another TexAgs account.
nonameag99 said:
I heard pump seal failure
Pump seal failure would be interesting.
When dealing with volatile chemicals, a double mechanical with a plan 53 secondary should be the minimum. You could always get more instruments to warn and get a gas seal panel instead/too.
All would be more expensive, of course, but geez, how much is the litigation alone going to cost in this? Everyone and their dog is going to sue the crap out of this place.
A little more expense put into equipment could mitigate a lot of lawsuits, however, I know from experience that only the bare minimum will typically be done unless it's a major like Exxon or Shell.
suburban cowboy said:CDUB98 said:
The reaction to this has been strange to me.
The early reports (yesterday) were that ITC was coming up with a plan. YOU DIDN'T HAVE A FIRE PLAN IN PLACE ALREADY?!! WTF?!!
Now, they decide to just let it burn itself out. Oooookay? Seems less than healthy for everyone and also an environmental hazard. Oh, and YOU GET SOME TOLUENE, AND YOU GET SOME TOLUENE, EVERYBODY GETS SOME TOLUENE!! WTF?!!
Why were there no foam suppression systems on the tanks?
How did this whole thing start in the first place? Seems you'd want to really watch your P's and Q's around these particular chemicals.
They have a fire plan, and probably very sophisticated contingency plans. That is required by regulation and audited by the USCG among other regulatory entities.
Problem is, when you have 200+ tanks, no matter how much training or planning you do, you cannot prepare for every scenario.
There were no foam suppression systems on the tanks because it is not currently a requirement. I'd expect this to change at some point.
How did it happen? It will take months to investigate and I would think the Chemical Safety Board will be heavily involved.
I can appreciate the direct response, but really, most of my post was rhetorical and venting.
I get a burr in my saddle around safety, both overly safe and under.
I've sat in plenty of PHA's, and one thing that has always bugged me is the inability to double jeopardy. I understand the reasoning, as you can go down a rabbit hole, but in some cases, I think it is worthwhile.
The foam suppression is not mandatory, yes, I am aware, I'm just surprised a company would take the risk on naphtha and toluene, and in general, any tank. It's just good insurance.
But, it's always about cost, cost, cost, and sometimes, it just isn't worth skipping safety belt and suspenders. (Yes, personal opinion.)
nonameag99 said:
I heard pump seal failure
I heard it was pump related as well, but perhaps that it was not circuiting properly which created the source.
yikes. this looks really bad.
The fire trucks look pathetically undersized to respond to something like this from the video I saw. I hope there's an airdrop of fire suppressant in the works.
The fire trucks look pathetically undersized to respond to something like this from the video I saw. I hope there's an airdrop of fire suppressant in the works.
How does a bad pump seal lead to a fire at the top of a internal floating roof tank?
Towns03 said:
How does a bad pump seal lead to a fire at the top of a internal floating roof tank?
Vapors ignite from the pump back to the tank.
Flame propagation.
I was wondering about this - at what point do, or can, they treat this like a wildfire and drop some sort of fire suppressant from above?
A risk of explosion + a densely populated area I can't imagine dropping a fire suppressant from overhead would be a great idea.
borrowed from reddit
K Bo said:
I was wondering about this - at what point do, or can, they treat this like a wildfire and drop some sort of fire suppressant from above?
Not necessarily the best idea as it may put out the fire but could create a vapor cloud and bigger boom...
As was reiterated, they have significant safety plans but every scenario is different.
makes sense.
CDUB98 said:Towns03 said:
How does a bad pump seal lead to a fire at the top of a internal floating roof tank?
Vapors ignite from the pump back to the tank.
Flame propagation.
I don't think I follow. several things would have to happen: the tank must be empty and vapors in the explosive range (recently pumped down) plus the pump would have to fail in a way that leads to an internal failure and spark. is that what you're suggesting? I did hear there was an empty tank.
a floating roof tank that has been pumped out is required to either A) be refilled within 24 hours or B) be 'degassed' by pulling vapors from under the floating roof until VOC concentration is below 10K PPMV.
If B, the 'degassing' units used at ITC are junk and highly likely to create a spark that, with another failure, could travel back to the tank. This happens from time to time during degassing often due to static electricity build up when pulling vapors from the tank.
That is a crazy image
I don't buy for one second the fire is contained. if a tank shell fails in the heat it would pour out flammable liquids all over the place. Also, that terminal is stacked with tanks. I would expect the fire to jump from one tank to another until the property line.
Towns03 said:CDUB98 said:Towns03 said:
How does a bad pump seal lead to a fire at the top of a internal floating roof tank?
Vapors ignite from the pump back to the tank.
Flame propagation.
I don't think I follow. several things would have to happen: the tank must be empty and vapors in the explosive range (recently pumped down) plus the pump would have to fail in a way that leads to an internal failure and spark. is that what you're suggesting? I did hear there was an empty tank.
a floating roof tank that has been pumped out is required to either A) be refilled within 24 hours or B) be 'degassed' by pulling vapors from under the floating roof until VOC concentration is below 10K PPMV.
If B, the 'degassing' units used at ITC are junk and highly likely to create a spark that, with another failure, could travel back to the tank. This happens from time to time during degassing often due to static electricity build up when pulling vapors from the tank.
All good points.
This is all speculation and guess since we don't really know for sure. Weird things happen. The vapor trail could have gone from the pump up to the top of the tank if the vapor was lighter than air.
As for ignition source, that could be one of many things. A simple static discharge from something in the area is enough.
I mean, the BP explosion originated from inside the combustion chamber of an engine, IIRC, as it sucked in the vapors while it was running. The flame had to move fast to get out of the combustion chamber.
At the end of the day, someone likely cut a safety corner. Nearly all accidents these days are like that. When you combine safety cuts with bare minimum safety controls, bad things can more readily happen.
Rumors are what we pay for them, and it may not have even been a pump seal failure. Maybe it was something else. The seal failure just happens to be the first mode someone threw out on this thread.
Aren't there fire fighting rigs that spray foam from below on top of tanks to douse them? I've seen demonstrations on crude tanks.
Maybe it has to do with the particular chemical, and as stated earlier, a bigger boom could happen if the vapors are still going with no fire. Naphtha isn't exactly stable at 0 psig.....I think. Been a while since I've worked with it.
Maybe it has to do with the particular chemical, and as stated earlier, a bigger boom could happen if the vapors are still going with no fire. Naphtha isn't exactly stable at 0 psig.....I think. Been a while since I've worked with it.
I have confirmed this happened during butane injection. Pump failed causing butane to vaporize and starting the fire.
The vapor pressure of butane at 70F is 35.4 psia, for reference.
Good Poster
Pitt LB Solomon DeShields Visiting Texas A&M This Weekend
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
33