An explosion at a coal-fired power plant killed one person and injured 10 others. The blast killed the delivery truck driver who was unloading compressed hydrogen gas, which is used to cool the plant's steam generators. Hydrogen deliveries are routine at the plant, occurring about once a week. Evidence pointed to the premature failure of a pressure-relief device (PRD) rupture disk, which had been repaired by the vendor six months prior to the explosion.
A hydrogen explosion occurred at a plant, damaging a wall adjacent to the hydrogen storage assembly. The investigation revealed that the explosion was the consequence of deficiencies in components integral to the hydrogen storage assembly, and that this assembly belonged to a supplier contracted to provide hydrogen to the plant. The analysis revealed that had the supplier properly installed and maintained this equipment, this incident would have been prevented. By receiving assurance, on an ongoing basis, that the supplier was properly maintaining this equipment, the company could have also reduced the chance of occurrence of this incident.
A hydrogen supplier was awarded a contract in 1990 to supply the plant with hydrogen as well as to provide view more
During a standard testing procedure, a 3,000 psig relief valve actuated at normal line pressure, releasing gaseous H2. The gaseous H2 combined with air, resulting in an explosion which damaged the test facility.
The relief valve was improperly set to open at line pressure, and the inspection was inadequate in that it didn't identify this error. Contributing cause was poor design of the venting system, which was installed in a horizontal position, causing inadequate venting and buildup of static electricity.
A petroleum refinery experienced a catastrophic rupture at one bank of three heat exchangers in a catalytic reformer/naphtha hydrotreater unit because of high temperature hydrogen attack (HTHA). Hydrogen and naphtha at more than 500F were released from the ruptured heat exchanger and ignited, causing an explosion and an intense fire burned for more than three hours.
The rupture fatally injured seven employees working in the immediate vicinity of heat exchanger at the time of the incident. The workers were in the final stages of a start-up activity to put a parallel bank of three heat exchangers back in service following cleaning. Such start-up activities had resulted in frequent leaks and occasional fires in the past and should have been considered as hazardous and nonroutine. view more