The ultimate cause of the August 26 accident at Guangxi Guangwei, which shocked the entire national chemical industry, was static electricity!
Thread Content
The Procuratorate of Yizhou City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, approved the arrest, in accordance with the law, of Huang Shangbing and Deng Weirong, the persons responsible for the \"8·26\" explosion incident, on charges of serious labor safety accidents. At around 6:40 on August 26, 2008, an explosion occurred at the organic chemicals plant owned by Guangxi Vinylon Group Co., Ltd., resulting in 21 deaths, over 60 injuries, direct economic losses of more than 75 million yuan, as well as pollution of the local air quality and the water quality of the Longjiang River. It was the worst accident in the national chemical industry in 10 years! It caused the entire plant to be completely destroyed. After the accident, the autonomous region’s ** promptly established an accident investigation team to conduct inquiries. According to the assessment by experts from the investigation team, the direct cause of this explosion was that the gas phase in the storage tank containing reaction liquid CC-601C was filled with flammable gases primarily acetylene. Around 6 a.m. on August 26, the liquid level in the tank dropped, allowing air to enter the tank; this air mixed with the flammable gases present there to form explosive mixtures. An electrostatic spark triggered an explosion within the tank, which in turn caused explosions to occur in other tanks of the CC-601C series as well. The indirect causes of the accident were backward process management, design flaws in the tank farm, and defects in safety devices. Huang Shangbing, the director of the organic chemicals factory under Guangxi Vinylon Group Co., Ltd., and Deng Weirong, the deputy director, as the direct supervisors of the production and operation unit, failed to take timely action to rectify the safety-related issues with the production facilities that did not comply with relevant regulations, which led to this explosion accident. (Reported in the Procuratorial Daily on January 22, 2009) http://newspaper.jcrb.com/html/2009-01/22/content_10059.htm Everyone should be aware of the dangers of static electricity! This post was last edited by GUANGWEI8.26 on March 12, 2009, at 22:26.]
Has the specific, exact version of the accident investigation report been released?
Is an accident more ferocious than a tiger? In daily production, more attention must be paid to details, as any negligence can lead to accidents
“Air is drawn into the tank, where it mixes with the flammable gases present there to form explosive gases; an electrostatic spark can then cause an explosion of these gases inside the tank. How do these mixed explosive gases come into contact with an electrostatic spark?
An official version of the accident cause investigation report has never been released. It’s been quite some time; they should be out by now, so that the relevant companies can learn from the experience.
Find out the reason; in the 90s, an *transport vehicle exploded, and it was later said that static electricity was to blame.
There are many theories regarding the cause of the accident, and the true reason still needs further investigation. The results of the accident investigation should be made public as soon as possible, without any concealment.
The reasons stated in the accident investigation report obtained from the safety supervision department in October are as follows; it is unknown whether this report has been updated since then. (II) Direct cause of the accident: The gaseous phase in the storage tank for reaction liquid CC-601C consists mainly of acetylene, a flammable gas. This gas mixed with the air that entered the tank to form an explosive mixture. This explosive mixture escaped through the holes in the wire rope of the level gauge, and was ignited by static electricity generated by the movement of the wire rope and pulleys, resulting in an deflagration (smothered explosion) of the gases inside the tank. Subsequently, large amounts of flammable liquids and acetylene leaked out, forming vapor clouds that spread throughout the plant area; upon encountering a source of fire, this led to a massive explosion and fire that affected the entire facility. (III) Indirect causes of the accident: 1. The parallel use of the five storage tanks in the CC-601 series increased the amount of leakage ； 2. The design of the tank farm is unreasonable. The organic plant of Guangwei Company had its construction design carried out in 1972; due to the limitations of technical capabilities at that time, the standards and specifications used in the design were of lower standard compared to those in use today. The layout of the tank farm as well as its safety facilities no longer meet the requirements of current standards and specifications. There are no combustible gas detectors. 3. Equipment safety management is chaotic. ① When replacing the PU-601A and B pumps in April 2008, insufficient awareness was held regarding the potential electrostatic hazards resulting from increased flow rates and head (pressure), and no appropriate protective measures were taken. ②The corrosion-induced perforations in the roof covers of tanks CC-601A and C were included in the 2008 maintenance plan, but repairs were not carried out as scheduled during the maintenance in April. ③The tank farm was originally designed to have a foam fire extinguishing system, but it became unusable in 1984 due to lack of maintenance, and it was removed in 1999. ④ The storage tanks were originally designed to have temperature measurement devices, but these were not installed or used as per the design. The image shows the sealed temperature measurement port. 4. The process management system is inadequate; the operating procedures for the tank farm are not thorough, there are no requirements for temperature control of the materials stored in the tanks, and the criteria for level control are unclear. 5. The work of identifying and addressing potential hazards is not thorough or diligent, with an insufficient understanding of the risks present in the enterprise
In many accidents, since the cause cannot be identified, blame is placed on static electricity: lol
It cannot be simply attributed to static electricity; how does gas inhalation occur?
I have seen one of the most shocking accident investigation reports; I was able to see it only because I had good relationships with the local safety supervision authorities. It’s not clear whether the experts from the provincial authority agreed with that conclusion. Before the Lunar New Year in 2008, a nitrocellulose manufacturer stored the nitrocellulose intended for shipment the next day outside the warehouse. A fire broke out at night, and dozens of tons of nitrocellulose were destroyed in just over ten minutes. The local safety supervision authorities could find no cause for the fire and concluded that it might have been caused by static electricity generated by small animals (rats) moving around among the piles of nitrocellulose.
The direct cause of this problem is static electricity. But the main reason is poor management. The fundamental problem is inadequate safety inspections. :)
There are countless accidents caused by static electricity, which represents a significant safety hazard. Any form of friction can generate static electricity, and usually people are not even aware of its presence. Once conditions that lead to explosions or other accidents arise, disasters quickly occur. Anti-static grounding, regular testing of the resistance of anti-static grounding systems on an annual basis, as well as anti-static work clothes for workers, are all measures taken to prevent the generation of static electricity. In this sense, static electricity is even more dangerous than open flames, as it is an invisible killer
Could someone tell me how to prevent static electricity in storage tanks? I’d like to learn about it
How can an acetylene-containing tank with such high explosion-proof requirements draw in air just because the liquid level drops? Is there no inert gas protection? Don’t such acetylene-containing tanks, which have such high explosion-proof requirements, have an electrostatic grounding network? What’s important isn’t static electricity, but why air gets into the storage tank! :L :L
You can refer to the post on the forum titled “Technical Analysis Report on the Accident at Guangwei Group Company and Video Recordings of the Incident Site”: http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-323500-1-1.html
The workshop increased the flow rate of the pump from over 30 to over 50 units without authorization; this increase in pipeline flow rate is closely related to static electricity accumulation. In chemical plants, problems related to static electricity can easily arise if they are not properly addressed. **There are relevant regulations in place. The causes of the accident have been identified, as well as the actions taken to address them. What was published in the Prosecution Daily is only a part of it.**
It’s basically the same as the cause of the accident on 9.17 that happened to you guys.
In fact, the causes of accidents are still related to processes, equipment, and operations. It is unscientific to attribute accidents to static electricity, as static electricity is present everywhere; the most important thing is to prevent the formation of explosive mixtures
Is there also static electricity in the storage tank? Aren’t storage tanks usually made of metal? Logically, static electricity should be conducted into the ground, right?
Although refining and chemical processing companies all require employees to wear anti-static clothing, it is still important to be cautious on a regular basis to prevent problems before they occur! Ninety-nine percent of accidents are caused by human factors; therefore, as long as we take proper preventive measures, the likelihood of accidents remains relatively low! The key is people’s thoughts; that’s the main reason!