Hydrocarbon Processing Copying and distributing are prohibited without permission of the publisher
Email a friend
  • Please enter a maximum of 5 recipients. Use ; to separate more than one email address.

US investigation blames lax safety culture for fatal Carbide chemical blast

02.07.2013  | 

The explosion resulted from a failure by the company to investigate similar but smaller explosive incidents over many years while deferring crucial maintenance of the large electric arc furnace that blew up, according to the CSB. Two workers inside died within 24 hours from severe burn injuries.


12_4326_CSB_01702.JPG A large explosion on March 21, 2011, at a Carbide Industries plant that killed two workers and injured two others resulted from a failure by the company to investigate similar but smaller explosive incidents over many years while deferring crucial maintenance of the large electric arc furnace that blew up.

These findings are according to the final investigation report, released on Thursday by US Chemical Safety Board (CSB).

The report, which contains recommendations to prevent such explosions in similar furnaces, is scheduled to be discussed at a CSB public meeting on Thursday night in Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville is the site of the calcium carbide plant.

The deaths and injuries likely resulted when water leaked into the electric arc furnace causing an over-pressure event, ejecting furnace contents heated to approximately 3800 degrees Fahrenheit, the CSB said.

Along with molten calcium carbide, the furnace spewed powdered debris and hot gases, which blew through the double-pane reinforced glass window of the furnace control room that was located just 12 feet from open vents atop the furnace. The two workers inside died within 24 hours from severe burn injuries.

"This accident is literally a case study into the tragic, predictable consequences of running equipment to failure even when repeated safety incidents over many years warn of impending failure," said CSB chairperson Rafael Moure-Eraso. 

"When control room windows blew out during previous furnace incidents, the company merely reinforced them, rather than taking the safe course and moving the control room farther from the furnace and investigating why the smaller furnace overpressure events were happening in the first place. It is what we call a ‘normalization of deviance,’ in which abnormal events become acceptable in everyday operations.”

The facility, located by the Ohio River in the “Rubbertown” section of western Louisville, supplies calcium carbide primarily to the iron and steel industry and to acetylene producers. It employs about 160 workers in operations, maintenance, and administration.

The investigation report proposed two scenarios for the development of cooling water leaks that likely resulted in the overpressure and explosion. In one scenario, fouling -- or the accumulation of solids inside the hollow chamber where water flows -- resulted in localized overheating, eventually causing sections of the cover to sag and crack.

Another possible cause of the leaks could have been the sudden eruption of hot liquid from the furnace, which operators called a “boil-up.” Hot liquids contact the underside of the furnace cover, eroding its ceramic lining, and eventually melting holes through which water leaks.

Post-incident examination revealed recurring water leaks in multiple zones of the furnace cover. Rather than replacing the furnace cover, the company directed workers to attempt repairs, according to the CSB. 

The investigation found that the company would inject a mixture of oats and commercially available “boiler solder” into the cooling water, in an effort to plug the leaks and keep the aging cover in operation.

Water leaks into the furnace interfere with the steady introduction of lime and coke raw materials, through an effect known as “bridging” or “arching,” the report noted. In a carbide-producing electric arc furnace, this can result in an undesirable and hazardous side reaction between calcium carbide and lime, which produces gas much more rapidly that the normal reaction to produce calcium carbide itself.

Industry literature described the phenomenon as early as 1965, and an independent CSB analysis confirmed that operating conditions at Carbide on the day of the incident could have resulted in this effect, causing hot materials to be expelled from the furnace.

“One of our key findings was that Carbide Industries issued 26 work orders to repair water leaks on the furnace cover in the five months prior to the March 2011 incident," said CSB lead investigator Johnnie Banks. 

"It was distressing to find that the company nonetheless continued operating the furnace despite the hazard from ongoing water leaks. We also found that the company could have prevented this incident had it voluntarily applied elements of a process safety management program, such as hazard analysis, incident investigation, and mechanical integrity.”

Investigator Banks noted that Carbide was not required to follow the OSHA Process Safety Management standard, since the company did not use threshold amounts of covered hazardous chemicals.

The report notes that Carbide continued operating the furnace even though it planned to replace the furnace cover in May 2011. The accident occurred in March of that year.

The investigation found that National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) industry codes governing the safe operation of potentially hazardous Class A furnaces, such as the one at Carbide, do not have specific requirements for appropriate safety devices, interlocks, and safe distances between the furnaces and occupied work areas.

The draft report recommended that the NFPA develop a national standard requiring companies to provide adequate safety instrumentation and controls to prevent explosions and overpressure events, mechanical integrity and inspection programs, and a documented siting analysis to ensure that control rooms and other occupied areas are adequately protected.

Carbide Industries was urged to modify the design and procedures for the electric arc furnace and related structures, including the control room, to comply with the standard the NFPA was recommended to develop, and to implement a mechanical integrity program for the electric arc furnace and cover, including preventive maintenance based on periodic inspec­tions, and timely replacement of the furnace cover.

At a minimum, the CSB said, the mechanical integrity program should include leak detection and repair and monitoring refractory lining wear.

“In my view, a national standard adopted by industry and incorporated into state and federal requirements would go a long way to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell the workers at Carbide Industries," said Moure-Eraso. 

"While that is important, it’s clear that Carbide displayed a chronic lack of commitment to figuring out what was going wrong, ignoring all the warning signs, even as its workers were exposed to a potential massive explosion just a few feet away from their control room.”

The CSB is an independent US federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. The agency's board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The board does not issue citations or fines but does make safety recommendations to plants, industry organizations, labor groups, and regulatory agencies such as OSHA and EPA.

The board's website can be visited here.

Have your say
  • All comments are subject to editorial review.
    All fields are compulsory.

John Averill

I apologize if my assumptions are misguided but my guess is that the Carbide facility suffered from profit-based, numbers driven management (not to be confused with leadership) resulting in a lopsided production culture (production trumps all - even obvious safety hazards). Too bad the management couldn't see that Safety and Production are complimentary, not competitive.
On a related note - I'm of the opinion that Industrial engineers (especially MEs and the CEs) should, as part of their degree program, be compelled to complete a required course in PSM. I always ask our new engineers what they know about PSM and most of them just shrug their shoulders and give me a blank look. For Heaven's sake, they're the people that design these facilities with, for example, control rooms right up against the process. They should be experts at mechanical integrity, MOC and facility siting. Industry does itself a huge disservice when hiring engineers that are PSM challenged.

Hirak Dutta

A sad tale of gross negligence coupled with poor management. Why should one live with known areas of weakness and invite accidents, mishaps and loss of human lives.

Ahmed Helmi

Just wondering; has that Carbide plant had a Safety Officer/Engineer? Weekly or even monthly Safety committee meetings? Safety Committee in the first place? The culture in that place possibly could be as simple as this: Live and Let others Live", but you may add: "until something tragic happens".

Allan Stirling

Good article and yet another example of how a quick fix without a proper risk assessment leads to a major incident. Control rooms should be located well away from any such high temperature sources. Reminiscent of an incident on Cormorant Alpha 1983 North Sea when the wall separating CCR from Emergency Generator (safe area) blew down killing two operators in CCR, source was drains communication enabing migration of hydrocarbon condensate to a safe area.

Related articles


Sign-up for the Free Daily HP Enewsletter!

Boxscore Database

A searchable database of project activity in the global hydrocarbon processing industry


Is 2016 the peak for US gasoline demand?




View previous results

Popular Searches

Please read our Term and Conditions and Privacy Policy before using the site. All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws.
© 2016 Hydrocarbon Processing. © 2016 Gulf Publishing Company.