In previous threads I have referred to an incident last year where a cell phone ignited a gas cloud in a Chevron Texaco gas plant. Here are some links where you can view details:
This is the
test of the safety message + further comment from Chevron Texaco.
This is from the technical safety committee discussion board at the ISA website.
Cheers,
Pete
*********************************************************
---- EMPC Central SHE Notice follows -----
One of the first confirmed cases of a Personal Electronic Device (PED)
causing a fire in an operating area. Person was working on a natural gas
supplied
instrument panel. Cell phone rang and when he flipped phone open, a small
falsh fire ensued, causing burns to the worker. Incident occurred at
Chevron location. Guidance provided in second note attached is from
ChevronTexaco -- for your consideration, but should not be considered an
ExxonMobil policy or requirement.
On Tuesday(1/29/02)we(ChevronTexaco)had a contract Panel Specialist in MP
41 burned while working on an open panel that used supply gas for the
instrumentation. He was carrying a Nextel cell phone that was turned on
and rang while working on the panel. When he flipped it open to answer
the call a flash fire occurred, causing second degree burns on his
forearms and caused a "sunburn" on his nose and cheeks. While we have
talked about electronic devices being an ignition source there appears to
be very little belief that it really can happen, and as a result,
electronics are still used with little regard to the potential danger. We
have taken steps to ban all cell phones in the field and have raised the
attention level of the danger electronic devices pose if not used in safe
locations or in conjunction with a gas detector. Fortunately, this man
was not hurt worse, however, it appears that it is a Contractor LTA and a
Recordable Fire (because of the injury). He was wearing safety glasses
which probably prevented an eye injury.
Unfortunately, it took an incident such as this to drive
home the
potential danger of electronics as ignition sources-please use this as an
opportunity to educate your folks so that it doesn't happen somewhere
else...
Thanks,
Jim Swartz
Asset Team Leader
Main Pass 41 Asset Team
504-592-7171
ChevronTexaco Followup Note:
This looks like the first cell phone incident the ERTC Fire & Process
Safety Team has been able to verify (worldwide). Now that we have the
data, it is clear that portable electric/electronic devices (PEDs) should
be considered ignition sources. We offer the following immediate
guidance until we can formalize it in the Fire Protection Manual:
* Unless they are tested, approved and labeled to be intrinsically safe,
PED's can be ignition sources, and as such need to be controlled.
* Possible means of control:
* Require that PEDs be intrinsically safe - (this could be very difficult
to enforce)
* Eliminate their usage while in a facility where flammable vapors are a
risk
* Eliminate their usage for employees who have a higher risk of being
exposed to flammable vapors (operators and maintenance personnel - we
would put this contractor into this category because of the type of work
he was performing).
* Control their usage through a permitting process. Many locations are
moving toward a tiered hot work process, high energy and low energy, and
this would fall under low energy. The question is - Would a permitting
process have prevented this incident? In an optimal situation, yes; but in
real life, probably not because the contractor may not have even thought
to ask for a permit. Permitting will work for those PEDs being used
routinely as part of the job such as ultrasonic inspection equipment.
Please contact any member of the ERTC Fire & Process Safety Team for more
information:
Marty Welch
Fire Protection Engineering & Process Safety Management (ChevronTexaco)
*******************************************************