Nangal (Punjab), March 20 (IANS) Two engineers and a labourer were killed and one seriously injured in a furnace

blast in state-run National Fertilizers Limited (NFL) factory in this Punjab town, police said. According to police, the deceased were identified as Mahinder Singh Anand, Deepak Chabbra (both of them engineers) and labourer Jarnail Singh. 'The blast occurred due to the leakage of ammonia gas. According to the workers present inside the factory, there was a strong vibration followed by a loud blast,' a police official said. 'Three of the employees were killed on the spot due to severe burn injuries while one was shifted to a hospital in Ludhiana.' Employees of NFL were quite upset over this accident. 'This accident has happened only due to the laxity of the senior officials working here. All of them know that equipments installed have already lasted their life and need an immediate replacement but nobody is bothered,' an NFL engineer said requesting anonymity. Nangal is around 100 km from state capital Chandigarh.

Nangal (Punjab), Mar 20 Three employees were killed and one was critically injured in an explosion in the Ammonia plant of National Feritlisers Limited(NFL) in Nangal today. The explosion took place at around 11.40 AM following leakage of gas which left senior Manager Deepak Chhabra, Mechanical Engineer Mohinder Anand and a worker Jarnail Singh dead on the spot, NFL Factory Manager Kuldip Chand said in a press release. Another worker Umesh Kumar sustained serious burn injuries and taken to DMC hospital in Ludhiana. The saturator tower fell and a few wires were found detached in the plant. Immediately, actions were initiated to shut down the Ammonia and other plants and the total system was isolated and depressurised while damage and cause of the accident is being assessed, Chand said. Ropar SSP L.K.Yadav ruled out sabotage behind the incident and said there was no gas leakage after the explosion.

Authorities acted irresponsibly: SDM

Megha Mann Tribune News Service Nangal, March 21 Authorities of National Fertilisers Limited (NFL) Naya Nangal did not inform the district administration timely about the explosion in the ammonia plant that killed three and injured one on Saturday. SDM Nangal Lakhmir Singh has stated this in his preliminary report submitted to the Deputy Commissioner Ropar Priyank Bharti today. Sources said NFL authorities justified their act of not informing the district administration by stating that it was an on-site emergency and hence the administrations role was not required. It is learnt that the administration has taken a strong notice of this negligent attitude. The district administration plays a pivotal role in such situations like controlling the mob outside and taking other preventive steps. Confirming this, Bharti said that during the course of investigation, authorities would be indicted in the case.

NFL BLAST

Bharti added that the SDM had recommended a detailed technical inquiry into the episode for which the administration would seek the help of industry experts. We will write to the secretary industries demanding an external agencys help to investigate the matter threadbare, Bharti added. The SDM has pointed out five reasons as the cause of accident, which could be ascertained only after a technical inquiry. The listed causes include sudden increase in pressure of pipes or extra load on pipes, increase of temperature more than the permissible limits, leakages in pipes, untimely repairs or improper maintenance. Meanwhile, the condition of the NFL employee, Umesh Kumar, who got injured in the blast, is said to be stable and he is undergoing treatment at CMCH, Ludhiana. All the three deceased, including 47 years old manager mechanical Deepak Chhabra, 52 years old shift engineer production Mahinder Anand and 49 years old labourer on contract Jarnail Singh from nearby Mojewal village were cremated today.

May be sabotage, says Mann

Terming the NFL Nangal incident of ammonia plant blast as sabotage, the SAD (Amritsar) chief Simranjit Singh Mann today demanded a high-level probe into the incident. Talking to TNS, he said NFL Nangal housed a heavy water plant. A similar blast was reported at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre a few days ago. It is a plan to sabotage the nuclear dreams of the country. Such incidents were reported in other parts of world as well, he said. Mann demanded an inquiry into the episode by the FBI and said the Union Home Minister should be held accountable for such incidents.

When the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors standardized its reporting process for gathering incident statistics in 1991, it was with the objective of creating an accurate and consistent database that would, over time, yield a bona fide method of identifying and correcting the causes of boiler and pressure vessel accidents. The first composite evaluation of this data, published in 1997, covered a five-year period from 1992 to 1996. With a benchmark in place, the 1997 analysis provided a particularly useful perspective on incident cause and effect. Five years later, it can be stated that the overriding conclusion reached from the second five-year study reinforces the findings of the first: namely, that human error remains the foremost cause of boiler and pressure vessel incidents in North America.

OVERVIEW
Tragically, a total of 127 people have lost their lives as the result of boiler and pressure vessel accidents during the past 10 years. On average, that is just less than 13 fatalities per year. The annual number of deaths has seesawed over the past 10 years (see Figure 1), with the only sustained downward trend over three years taking place between 1999 and 2001. While this may appear to be a positive revelation, it must be considered in the context that 1999 saw the most deaths (21) over the 10-year period. The lowest number of fatalities over the reporting period, 8, was recorded in 1994.

In the category of injuries, a total of 720 were recorded between 1992 and 2001 an average of nearly 72 per year. Again, 1999 was not only the most deadly in the boiler and pressure vessel industry, it also saw the highest number of injuries with 136. By comparison, the year 2000 experienced the lowest number of injuries at 27. When it comes to number of accidents, there is little positive news. Each year during the 1992 to 2001 reporting period saw at least 2,000 accidents, with a total of 23,338 accidents. That averaged 2,334 accidents per year. The highest number of accidents (2,686) occurred in 2000, while the lowest number (2,011) took place in 1998 (see Figure 2).

INJURY-PER-ACCIDENT RATIO
While numbers may climb and fall each year, the one true measure of how the industry is faring can perhaps best be found in a statistic not officially included as part of the reporting system: the injury-per-accident ratio. Since 1992, this ratio has ranged from one injury for every 99 accidents in 2000 (the safest year) to one injury for every 16 accidents in 1999 (the most dangerous). Last years ratio of one injury for every 26 accidents was the third worst year for safety during the 10 year reporting period. The average ratio of injuries to accidents for the 10-year period was one injury for every 32 accidents.

HUMAN ERROR
Of the 23,338 accidents recorded over the past 10 years, 83 percent were a direct result of human oversight or lack of knowledge (i.e., low-water condition, improper installation, improper repair, operator error or poor maintenance). Human oversight and lack of knowledge were also responsible for 69 percent of the injuries and 60 percent of recorded deaths. As anyone who has followed these Incident Reports knows, low-water condition and operator error or poor maintenance have stood atop the list of boiler accident causes for all 10 years (includes power boilers, steam-heating boilers, and water-heating boilers). While low-water condition has been the predominant cause during this time period, operator error or poor maintenance has surpassed its causal counterpart just three times: in 1998, 1999, and 2000. (After this three-year hiatus, low-water condition regained its position as leading cause last year.) Other major causes of boiler accidents reflect a mixed combination of human oversight and mechanical breakdown. In five of the 10 years, burner failure was the third leading cause of incidents (1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997), followed by limit controls in 1993 and 2000. Improper installation was the third leading cause in 1998, with improper repair coming in third in 1999 (see Figure 3). In what comes as a surprise to many, the combined third leading cause for both boiler and pressure vessel accidents last year (2001) was unknown/undetermined a category introduced as part of the Incident Report in 1999. With unknown/undetermined accident causes exceeding 7 percent in 2001, National Board Executive Director Donald Tanner commented, What we dont know can hurt us. While being able to identify and isolate a problem may not necessarily give us complete comfort, it does provide certainty the knowledge of understanding what needs to be corrected.

Tube failures in boiler are bound to occur during operation. Waterwall tube failure in specific locations can lead to mild to severe explosion. Read through for more details. Waterwall tube failures are not uncommon in coal fired boilers. The failures reasons can be many starting from short term overheating to long term overheating, corrosion, erosion, etc. Waterwall tube failure in the burner panel corner in a tangential fired boiler and waterwall tube failure in the burner opening of a front wall fired boiler can lead to minor to sever explosion in the boiler. If the location of failure of tube, load in the boiler, and the temperature conditions are such that the steam from the leaky tube can reach the pulverized coal at a location where it is just starting to burn, then a large amount of CO, etc.-like producer gas can be formed. This gets ignited leading to heavy disturbance in the furnace leading to further production of unburned gases and volatiles, which then explodes. The magnitude of explosion can vary from a low to very high. The sequence of events at full load operation of a boiler can be visualized as given.

Boiler running at full load and with no specific disturbance One of the corner water tube fails with a burst opening A loud sound is heard The boiler tripped and the operator boxed up the boiler The walk through inspection reveal that there was an explosion in the boiler When boiler is examined after it was safe to enter into the boiler, a tube failure very close to the fuel nozzle or burner can be seen The water wall tubes on the other panel can have sever bows depending on the intensity of the explosion The corner could be ripped open and the buckstay shear pin sheared, typical of an explosion / high pressurization of furnace It can then be believed that the cause of this could be an atmosphere conducive to produce large volume CO and or producer gas at the point when the water wall tube started opening has occurred. This large quantity of these gases would, along with the pulverized coal entering the furnace, could have exploded very locally or in the furnace and resulted in the damage.

If the boiler is a tangential fired type with tilting arrangement, then the chances are more for such phenomenon to occur. However cannot be fully ruled out in front wall fired designs.

Boiler Explosion Causes

Excessive boiler pressure can cause an explosion. When the boiler can no longer contain the excessive pressure allowed to build in the boiler, the boiler explodes. Excessive pressure accidents can completely destroy a building. Fuel-related boiler explosions can occur when there is a failure to purge combustible gases from the firebox before ignition is attempted. Leaking fuel valves can also be the cause of explosions. In some cases, a boiler explosion can be caused when the boiler is allowed to operate without adequate water. Injury and death from a boiler explosion can be caused by the shock wave created by the explosion, flying pieces of debris, steam and heat.

Over heating Long-term overheating is a condition in which metal temperatures exceeddesign limits for days, weeks, months, or longer. This type of overheating isthe cause of more boiler failures than any other mechanism. Because steelloses much strength at elevated temperatures. rupture caused by normal internal pressure becomes more likely as temperatures rise The maximum allowable design temperature is primarily a function of tube metallurgy. As the amount of alloying element, particularly chromium and molybdenum, is increased, higher temperatures can be tolerated. Alloy tubes are therefore frequently used in superheaters and reheaters. Long-term overheating depends on temperature, length of time at temperature, and tube metallurgy. A mild steel tube subject to temperatures above 85O0F (4540C) for morethan a few days may experience long-term overheating. If temperaturesremain elevated for a prolonged period, overheating will certainly occur. Astemperatures rise, the severity of the overheating during a fixed periodincreases. No gross deformation or thermal deterioration may be evident. Furnace-gas temperature often exceeds 200O0F (10930C). Heat transferinto a boiler tube is controlled partly by the insulating characteristics of material near internal and external surfaces Heat transfer is markedly influenced by a thin gas film that normally exists on external surfaces. A temperature drop of over 100O0 F (5370

C) commonly occurs across this film. Deposits, corrosion products, refractories, and other materials on external surfaces also slightly reduce metal temperatures. The thermal resistance of the tube wall may cause a very slight drop in temperature across the wall. When considering heat transfer through the water-side surface, the effect of deposits is reversed. Steam layers and deposits insulate the metal from the cooling effects of the water, resulting in reduced heat transfer into the water and increased metal temperatures. Bulging usually precedes rupture. Many times bulging results because hot-face (hot-side) temperatures are not uniform and local regions develop hot spots. Bulges can take many forms; some are shallow and sloping, while others are abrupt (Fig. 2.2). A single bulge or many bulges may occur. When many bulges occur along the hot faces, internal deposition is sometimes great