Natech Accident
DISCLAIMER: The Joint Research Centre does not guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the data in eNatech. It also reserves the right to cancel or change records without prior notification.
Type
Natech Accident
Date
2007/02/16
Time
14:09
Duration
54 hour(s)
Status
Published

Units Involved

  1. Name
    Propane Deasphalting (PDA) unit
    Type
    Process: Other
    Description
    The propane PDA unit uses liquid propane as a solvent to separate gas oil from asphalt. The gas oil is fed to other units in the refinery for further processing. The asphalt is sold as paving material.
  2. Name
    Three chlorine containers
    Type
    Storage: Other
    Description
    Three chlorine containers each having a capacity of 1 ton.
    Chlorine was used as a biocide in an adjacent cooling tower (although biocides are inherently safer than chlorine).
  3. Name
    Butane storage sphere
    Type
    Storage: Other
    Description
    A 10,000 barrel (420,000 gallon) capacity butane storage sphere (uninsulated).
  4. Name
    Steel pipe rack - ancillary support structure
    Type
    Auxiliary: Other
    Description
    The pipe rack was providing structural support to pipes.

Event Sequences

  1. Name
    Propane release and massive fire
    Unit
    1. Propane Deasphalting (PDA) unit
    Description
    On February 16, 2007, a liquid propane release from cracked control station piping resulted in a massive fire in the propane deasphalting (PDA) unit at Valero’s McKee Refinery near Sunray, Texas, injuring three employees and a contractor. The fire caused extensive equipment damage and resulted in the evacuation and total shutdown of the McKee Refinery. The refinery remained shut down for two months; the PDA unit was rebuilt and resumed operation nearly one year after the incident. Direct losses attributed to the fire were reported to exceed $50 million.
    Substances Involved
    1. Name
      Propane
      CAS No
      74-98-6
    Initiating EventCritical EventMajor Event
    Component (Non-structural): Pipe break / damage
    A high-pressure piping at a control station (which had not been in service for approximately 15 years) most likely cracked due to freeze on February 15, 2007, when the outdoor air temperature fell to -14 degrees Celcius (six degrees Fahrenheit).

    During the cold weather prior to the incident, accumulated water in an inlet pipe elbow froze, expanded, and cracked the pipe. While the water remained frozen, the formed ice was sealing the pipe's crack.
    Contributing Factors
    Organisational: Isolation of equipment / system: Non-existent
    The control station was not isolated or freeze-protected but left connected to the process, forming a dead-leg.
    The dead-leg was blocked on one side by a valve that was later found to be leaking, as debris jammed the valve and prevented it from closing fully.

    American Petroleum Institute (API)-recommended safety practices for oil refineries did not provide detailed guidance on freeze protection programs, nor did they sufficiently stress freeze protection of dead-legs, or of infrequently used piping and equipment.

    The McKee Refinery’s freeze protection practices did not ensure that process units were systematically reviewed to identify and mitigate freezing hazards for dead-legs or infrequently used piping and equipment.
    Measure: Emergency shut off / safety valves: Inadequate
    Over time, small amounts of water that were contained in the liquid propane flowed past the leaking valve and accumulated in the piping below, the lowest point formed by the control station.
    Other:
    The refinery did not conduct a management of change review (i.e., systematic reviewing of safety implications of modifications to process technology, facilities, equipment, chemicals, organizations, policies, and standard operating practices and procedures) when the control station was removed from active service in the 1990s. Consequently, the freeze-related hazards of the dead-leg formed by the control station were not identified or corrected when the change was made.
    Release: Gas, vapour, mist, or smoke release to air
    On the day of the incident, the air temperature rose and melted the ice in the inlet pipe elbow, releasing 4,500 pounds per minute of liquid propane.
    Contributing Factors
    Measure: Emergency shut off / safety valves: Non-existent
    Control room operators were unable to shut off the flow of propane because remotely operable shut-off valves/emergency isolation valves were not installed in the PDA.

    Although API provided safety guidance for the use of shut-off/emergency isolation valves in LPG storage installations, it did not address their use in refinery process units handling large quantities of flammable materials. Valero internal standards required the use of shut-off/emergency isolation valves in such process units, but the McKee Refinery had not retrofitted them in the PDA unit.
    Fire: Vapour cloud fire / flash fire
    The released propane vapor cloud traveled downwind toward the boiler house where it likely ignited. The flames flashed back to the leak source and grew rapidly into fire that engulfed the area and threatened surrounding units.

    The rapidly expanding fire prevented field operators from closing manual isolation valves or reaching local pump controls to isolate the high-pressure propane being vented to the atmosphere. The lack of remote isolation significantly increased the duration and size of the fire, resulting in extensive damage to the PDA, the main pipe rack, and an adjacent process unit.
  2. Name
    Pipe rack collapse
    Unit
    4. Steel pipe rack - ancillary support structure
    Description
    Flame impingement on a non-fireproofed structural support caused a pipe rack to collapse, significantly increasing the size and duration of the fire, and led to the evacuation and extended shutdown of the refinery.
    Initiating EventCritical EventMajor Event
    Event Sequence: Propane release and massive fire
    Flame impingement reached a steel support column pipe rack, which was not fireproofed. The column buckled, collapsing the rack and causing multiple pipe failures.
    -
    Fire: Conflagration
    Liquid petroleum products discharged from the damaged pipes, contributing to the rapid spread of the fire and the damage caused to surrounding equipment. As a consequence the size and duration of the fire was significantly increased, leading to the evacuation and extended shutdown of the refinery.
    Contributing Factors
    Organisational: Design of plant / equipment / system: Inadequate
    American Petroleum Institute (API)-recommended practices and Valero standards for fireproofing did not provide sufficiently protective guidance for fireproofing distance for pipe racks near process units containing high-pressure flammables.
  3. Name
    Chlorine release
    Unit
    2. Three chlorine containers
    Description
    The exposure of three one-ton chlorine containers to radiant heating from the fire led to the release of approximately 2.5 tons of highly toxic chlorine.
    Substances Involved
    1. Name
      Chlorine
      Involved Quantity
      2.5 ton
      Description
      The release of the contents of a single one-ton container of chlorine can create toxic effects up to three miles away, presenting a serious risk to workers and the public.
    Initiating EventCritical EventMajor Event
    Event Sequence: Propane release and massive fire
    Three chlorine containers were exposed to radiant heating from the fire.
    Release: Gas, vapour, mist, or smoke release to air
    Approximately 2.5 tons of highly toxic chlorine were released.
    -
  4. Name
    Near miss event - Butane sphere heat exposure
    Unit
    3. Butane storage sphere
    Description
    A butane storage sphere was exposed to radiant heating that blistered its paint. The manual firewater deluge valve for the butane sphere was located too close to the PDA unit and could not be opened during the fire.
    Initiating EventCritical EventMajor Event
    Event Sequence: Propane release and massive fire
    A butane storage sphere was exposed to radiant heating that damaged the white protective coating on the tank’s exterior (blistered its paint). The manual firewater deluge valve for the butane sphere was located too close to the PDA unit and could not be opened during the fire.
    Contributing Factors
    Organisational: Design of plant / equipment / system: Inappropriate
    API-recommended practices do not require the evaluation of hazards posed by adjacent process units when specifying the design, operation, or location of firewater deluge valves.
    Other:
    The wind tended to move the flames away from the sphere; strong winds from the southeast might have greatly exacerbated the sphere’s thermal exposure. Exposure to direct flame impingement or to significant heating over a prolonged period might have resulted in a vessel failure with potentially catastrophic consequences
    --

Weather Conditions

Description
High and shifting winds.

Emergency Response

Response Teams and Equipment Involved
On-site hazmat team
Sheltering and Evacuation due to the Natech event
On-site evacuation
Response to the Natech Event
The fire alarm was activated about one minute after the initial release (at 2:10 p.m).
The refinery’s emergency response team approached the fire, staging from the south. They attempted to activate stationary fire water monitors, but the high and shifting winds and the rapid growth of the fire hampered their efforts.

A refinery-wide evacuation was ordered by the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) approximately 15 minutes after the fire ignited. the main concerns driving the evacuation decision were the number of pressurized pipes rupturing as the pipe rack collapsed and the proximity of the responders to the liquid propane filled extractor vessels, which were engulfed in flames and possibly at risk of failing catastrophically. This decision pulled responders and workers away from a rapidly deteriorating situation that could have endangered many lives.

The refinery was shut down by isolating main feeds and the fuel gas supply. Emergency response teams later entered to isolate fuel sources, gradually shrinking the fire.

The fire was extinguished by Valero personnel on Sunday afternoon, February 18, 2008, approximately 54 hours after it ignited.

Consequences

On-site Injured
14
Human Health Impacts
Two employees and a contractor were seriously burned in the initial flash fire. The injured contractor continued to receive medical treatment for over a year after the incident.
A member of the fire brigade received minor burn injuries while setting up fire-fighting equipment early in the response.
Ten other Valero employees and contractors were treated for minor injuries and released.

There were no fatalities and no reported off-site injuries.
On-site Material Losses
50 M USD
Economic Impacts
The fire caused extensive equipment damage and resulted in the evacuation and total shutdown of the McKee Refinery.
The refinery remained shut down for two months and operated at reduced capacity for nearly a year.
The PDA unit was heavily damaged. It was rebuilt and resumed operation nearly one year after the incident.

Much of the piping, control wiring, and heat exchange equipment in the area of the extractors was destroyed and major equipment items, including the extractor towers, required extensive evaluation to determine if they were safe for continued use.

Direct losses attributed to the fire were reported to exceed $50 million.

Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned on Equipment
1) Remotely operable shut-off valves (ROSOVs), equipped with actuators and configured to be quickly and reliably operated from a safe location (such as a well-sited control room) should be used in facilities, such as the PDA unit, where fast and effective isolation is needed to reduce the impact of major hazardous releases.

2) Chlorine was used at the McKee Refinery to prevent microbial growth in cooling water; however, its toxicity made it an inherently hazardous material to work with. Safer materials for controlling biological growth in cooling towers are available (e.g., sodium hypochlorite/bleach), which are preferable to be used as a substiture to chlorine (e.g., bleach stores chlorine in a form that presents a much lower inhalation hazard, an example of the inherently safer principal of attenuation).
Lessons Learned on Organisational Aspects
The CSB investigation identified gaps in the API recommendations and standards that should be revised, i.e.:

1) Issue API-recommended practices for freeze protection in oil refinery process units that include, as a minimum:
• the establishment of a written program;
• periodic inspections to identify freeze hazards in dead-legs or infrequently used piping and equipment where water could collect;
• specific approaches to eliminate or protect against such freeze hazards; and
• identification of infrequently used piping or equipment subject to freezing as a trigger for Management Of Change (MOC) reviews.

2) Revise API 2218, Fireproofing Practices in Petroleum and Petrochemical Processing Plants, so that conformance with the standard addresses jet fire scenarios, and requires more protective fireproofing radii and other measures (e.g., emergency isolation valves, depressuring systems) for pipe rack support steel near process units containing highly pressurized flammables.

3) Revise API Recommended Practice 2001, Fire Protection in Refineries, and API 2030, Application of Fixed Water Spray Systems for Fire Protection in the Petroleum Industry, so that conformance with these recommended practices includes the design, installation, and use of remotely operable shut-off/emergency isolation valves and interlocked equipment controls to enable the safe and rapid emergency isolation of process equipment containing highly pressurized flammables.

4) Revise API Standard 2510, Design and Construction of LPG Installations,, and API Publication 2510A, Fire-Protection Considerations for the Design and Operation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Storage Facilities, to address effective deluge system activation during emergencies originating in nearby process units.

Recommendations towards the Valero Energy Corporation inlcude:
1) Identify all processes in this and other refineries where Valero’s mandatory "Emergency Isolation Valve standard" is applicable, and ensure that Remotely Operable Shut-off Valves (ROSOVs) are installed to control large accidental releases of flammable materials.

2) Establish corporate requirements for written freeze protection programs at Valero refineries subject to freezing temperatures, including identification, mitigation, MOC, and audit requirements.

3) Revise Valero standards, including Fire Proofing Specifications, to require evaluation of jet fire scenarios and, as a minimum, ensure more protective fireproofing for pipe rack support steel near process units containing highly pressurized flammables.

4) Audit Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) performance at its refineries to ensure adherence to company standards and good practice guidelines. Involve the workforce in PHA preparation, performance, and follow-up. Conducting PHA quality control checks.

5) Implement Valero’s strategic plan to replace chlorine used as a biocide in cooling water treatment with inherently safer materials, such as sodium hypochlorite, at all refineries.
Lessons Learned on Emergency Response Aspects
1) Train workforce and participants.

2) Follow up on recommendations for timely implementation and appropriate close-out.
ID: 111, Created: Kyriaki GKOKTSI, 2024-01-17 17:03:42 – Last Updated: Kyriaki GKOKTSI, 2024-04-29 14:07:58

Attachments

NoDescriptionFile Size
1.Article in Process Safety Beacon 152.83KB
2.CSB Investigation Report3.20MB