In , a huge explosion ripped apart a chemical plant in to confirm that the disaster at the Nypro plant at Flixborough was the result of. Failure Knowledge Database / Selected Cases. 1. Disaster of Chemical Plant at Flixborough. June 1st. , Flixborough UK. TAKEGAWA. Flixborough chemical plant explosion marked with service The disaster at Nypro chemical plant, near Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, left

Author: JoJogis Mezilkree
Country: Sudan
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 11 August 2009
Pages: 239
PDF File Size: 16.65 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.58 Mb
ISBN: 602-7-18151-217-7
Downloads: 4959
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mizil

It was ‘of the greatest importance that plants at which there is a risk of instant as opposed to escalating disaster be identified.

Flixborough (Nypro UK) Explosion 1st June 1974

We believe, however, that if the steps we recommend are carried out, the risk of any similar disaster, already remote, will be lessened. Popular Flixborpugh resort is the perfect place for a summer staycation. Is this page useful?

But pipe-lines were mostly small, and the amount of flammable gas or liquid on the plant was not usually large. The management of major hazard installations must show that it possessed and used fisaster selection of appropriate hazard recognition techniques, [S] had a proper system for audit of critical safety features, and used independent assessment where appropriate.

The plant, owned by Nypro UK, produced caprolactum, a chemical used in the manufacture of nylon.

Flixborough chemical plant explosion marked with service – BBC News

However theoretical modelling suggested that the expansion of the bellows as a result of squirm would lead to a significant amount of work being done on them by the reactor contents, and there would be considerable shock loading on the bellows flixborougb they reached the end of their travel.

No drawing of the proposed modification was produced. The Factory Inspectorate has standing only where it has promulgated specific regulations [13].

Nypro’s advisers had put considerable effort into the flixborouh hypothesis, and the inquiry report put considerable effort into discounting it. The inquiry identified difficulties at various stages of the accident development in the 8-inch hypothesis, their cumulative effect being considered to be such that the report concluded that overall the inch hypothesis involving ‘a single event of low probability’ was more credible than the 8-inch hypothesis depending upon ‘a succession of events, most of which are improbable’.

The emphasis was upon prompt restart and — the inquiry felt — although this did not lead to the deliberate acceptance of hazards, it led to the adoption of a course of action whose hazards and indeed engineering practicalities were not adequately considered or understood.

The Inquiry noted further that “there was no overall control or planning of the design, construction, testing or fitting of the assembly nor was any check made that the operations had been properly carried out”. During start-up the visaster valve was normally isolated and there was no route for excess pressure to escape; pressure was kept within acceptable limits slightly wider than those achieved under automatic control by operator intervention manual operation of vent valves.

Critics felt that the Flixborough explosion was not the result of multiple basic engineering design errors unlikely to coincide again; the errors were rather multiple instances of one underlying cause: Education Class Act contest fast-tracked to the final as 16 acts prepare to perform.


For any given distance where the comparison can be made, Flixborough gives a higher estimated over-pressure than Buncefield, and other things being equal — overpressure estimation techniques might have changed so much in 30 years that the comparison is meaningless is therefore presumably to be judged the larger explosion.

The explosion led to the biggest fire-fighting operation since the s and at the height of the incident 49 appliances were in attendance. This bypass was supported by scaffolding fitted with supports provided to prevent the bellows having to take the weight of the pipework between them, but with no provision against other loadings. Picture taken 5 days after the Nypro Flixborough Disaster which happened on June 1, During the late afternoon on 1 June a 20 inch bypass system ruptured, which may have been caused by a fire on a nearby 8 inch pipe.

In the Flixborough case, there is a real chance that the death toll could trigger meaningful changes in a neglected aspect of industrial safety.

It was a failure of this plant that led to the disaster. They were introduced about 2 years ago, but Billingham managed for 45 years without them. Immediately after the accident, New Scientist commented presciently on the normal official response to such events, but hoped that the opportunity would be taken to introduce effective government regulation of hazardous process plants.

One of the teachers at my school lost a relative in the explosion. We hired an aircraft from Biggin Hill for aerial photos and hit the phones. The plant as designed therefore could be destroyed by a single failure and had a much greater risk of killing workers than the designers had intended.

Nypro argued that the bolts had been loose, there had consequently been a slow leak of process fluid onto lagging leading eventually to a lagging fire, which had worsened the leak to the point where a flame had played undetected upon the elbow, burnt away its lagging and exposed the line to molten zinc, the line then failing with a bulk release of process fluid which extinguished the original fire, but subsequently ignited giving a small explosion which had caused failure of the bypass, a second larger release and a larger explosion.

If the UK public were largely reassured to be told the accident was a one-off and should never happen again, some UK process safety practitioners were less sanguine. The subsequent official inquiry lasted for 70 days. Following the disaster there was a huge public debate about the safety of industrial plants and regulations regarding industrial processes were made considerably more rigorous — the newly formed Heath and Safety Commission took a close interest in these developments.

During the late afternoon on 1 June the temporary bypass pipe ruptured, and a huge quantity of cyclohexane leaked from the pipe, forming a vapour cloud which then found a source of ignition. Speculation followed about the source of the blast, but then there was a radio message to the gala venue that all emergency services were needed elsewhere. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

The terms of reference of the Court of Inquiry did not include any requirement to comment on the regulatory regime under which the plant had been built and operated, but it was clear that it was not satisfactory.


The fires burned for several days and after ten days those that still raged were hampering the rescue work. Construction of the plant had required planning permission approval by the local council; while “an interdepartmental procedure enabled planning authorities to call upon the advice of Her Majesty’s Factory Inspectorate when considering applications for new developments which might involve a major hazard” [27] there was no requirement for them to do sosince the council had not recognised the hazardous nature of the plant [3] they had not called for advice.

The inch bypass was therefore clearly not what would have been produced or accepted by a more considered process, but controversy developed and became acrimonious as to whether its failure was the initiating fault in the disaster the inch hypothesis, argued by the plant designers DSM and the plant constructors; and favoured by the court’s technical advisers [3]or had been triggered by an external explosion resulting from a previous failure of the 8-inch line argued by experts retained by Nypro and their insurers [3].

Inaugural lecture given on 22 February ” PDF. There was a lot of discussion after as the chemical past though the local villages in tankers. You can visit our cookie privacy page for more information. Fires continued on-site for more than ten days.

Flixborough disaster

At a working level the offset was accommodated by a dog-leg in the bypass assembly; a section sloping downwards inserted between and joined with by mitre welds two horizontal lengths of inch flixborpugh abutting the existing inch stubs. I was a young child at the time and remember the veil of tragedy that fell over that part of Lincolnshire. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.

We will not be able to respond to personal family history research questions on this platform. ACMH felt that for major hazard installations [z] the plan should be formal and include. The rarity of major disasters tends to breed complacency and even a contempt for written instructions.

Retrieved from ” https: Eighteen fatalities occurred in the control room as a result of the windows shattering and the collapse of the roof. Sat 31 May at 5: This page was last edited on 14 Decemberat Cast in bronzeit showed mallards alighting on water. The enquiry noted the existence of a small tear in a bellows fragment, and therefore considered the possibility of a small leak from the bypass having led to an explosion bringing the bypass down.

It was opened inbut demand for caprolactam had fallen and on July dieaster,it was announced that the rebuilt Nypro works would close by October 31, with the strong workforce made redundant.