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.
Natech Accident
2017/08/31
01:00
Published

Units Involved

  1. Nine box vans with 36,000 pounds of peroxide in each
    Storage: Warehouse
    When power was failing due to the flood, the plant moved the peroxide from low temperature warehouses into nine wheeler box vans with 36,000 pounds of peroxide in each. The chemical was stored in 15-pound cardboard containers. In order to prevent unwanted dangerous reactions inside the boxes, the storage area needs to be constantly refrigerated through a cooling system requiring electric power.

Event Sequences

  1. Loss of cooling caused organic peroxide to degradate and explode
    1. Nine box vans with 36,000 pounds of peroxide in each
    When the area was flooded due to tropical storm Harvey, the chemical plant lost primary power and both its emergency backup power sources, which led to a shutdown of the critical refrigeration needed for the safe storage of self-decomposing and possibly explosive organic peroxides.
    1. Organic operoxides
      150 ton
      450 ton
      The organic peroxides were initially stored in nine storage buildings. Seven of these buildings were low-temperature warehouses, kept at −20 to 0 °F (−29 to −18 °C).
    Initiating EventCritical EventMajor Event
    Lifeline: Loss of electrical power / short circuit
    The plant was flooded by 6 feet of water which led to a power blackout, including the two backup power generation units which had to be switched off due to safety reasons.
    Contributing Factors
    Equipment: Power interruption:
    The amount of rainfall was unexpected and unprecedented. For this reason, the plant operator did not consider the possibility that the two redundant backup power systems could be unavailable at the same time.
    Release: Gas, vapour, mist, or smoke release to air
    Without cooling, the substance started to decompose, generating heat and smoke. These noxious fumes were released from the trailers.
    Explosion: Explosive decomposition
    When the temperature rose in the containers the chemical started to degrade. Then the reaction started to "self-accelerate" in an irreversible runaway reaction.
    Fire: Conflagration
    A fire broke out at one of the nine trailers on Thursday, following two chemical explosions that sent plumes of black smoke into the air.
    Fire: Conflagration
    A second fire started at another two of the nine trailers on Thursday, again sending plumes of black smoke into the air. The fire spread from one of the trailers to a second trailer.
    Dispersion: Substance in air
    Before the fire started, a noxious plume cloud was generated that stretched for several hundred meters from the site and engulfed one of the main roads (at that time close to traffic).

Weather Conditions

Rain
On Friday, 25 August, when Harvey made landfall, the National Hurricane Center forecast announced 15–30 inches (380–760 mm) of rainfall, with isolated amounts up to 40 inches (1,000 mm). On Sunday, 27 August, the National Hurricane Center updated its forecast, indicating additional rainfall of 15–25 inches (380–640 mm) and up to 50 inches (1,300 mm) over the next several days.

Emergency Response

Emergency response plan takes Natech events into consideration: Yes
Emergency response plan is sufficient in taking Natech events into consideration: No
When the flooding started, Arkema moved the temperature-sensitive chemicals into refrigerated trucks. Unfortunately, it was already too late to evacuate the trucks. The company decided to leave the trucks in place with two backup power systems. It was considered that if the trucks were stuck on a flooded and crowded highway, the consequences could have been serious.
Insufficient personnel and equipment to respond to both emergencies: No
Natech event prevents access of personnel to natural hazard affected area: Yes
Natech event prevents efficient operation of personnel in the natural hazard affected area: Yes
Evacuation of the site and of the neighboring population living within 1.5 miles from the Arkema plant, hampered the rescue operations in the area.
A police officer was hospitalized after inhaling noxious fumes from the fire.
Insufficient personnel and equipment to respond to both emergencies: No
Damage to lifelines (e.g. water, power, communication, transportation): Yes
  • On-site fire fighting team
  • Local fire fighting team
  • Local hazmat team
  • On-site evacuation
  • Off-site sheltering
  • Off-site evacuation
The water level was so high that the plant responders could do nothing to prevent the degradation and explosion of the chemical.
It was chosen to let the fire burn itself out, rather than put responders lives into danger. An evacuation of the site and of the neighboring population living within 1.5 miles from the Arkema plant in Crosby was called.
Only on Sunday, the company decided to ignite the remaining combustible containers rather than wait for them to explode on their own.

Consequences

18
300
At least 18 (mostly responders) were injured by inhaling noxious fumes produced by the decomposing peroxides.
The plant was evacuated, with only a few plant personnel and emergency responders left.
An evacuation order was issued in a 1.5 mile radius circle around the facilities and was lifted only a few days later. People complained because they could not go back to their homes for several days.

Lessons Learned

The redundancy of the backup power system is pointless if they are all caught in the same natural event.
Since the facility is located in a known flood prone area, the safety-relevant equipment should be located on higher ground in order to survive flood events.
In at least one of Arkema's hazard mitigation plans filed with the federal government, plant officials acknowledged that flooding is a risk. The site sits in a FEMA "high-risk" floodplain that has flooded in the past, leading to a power failure. That time, the site only had six inches of water. In that 2006 incident, strikingly similar to the 2017 incident, the plant flooded, lost power and materials ignited inside a warehouse. There is no indication that the company made any changes in its backup systems in response (e.g. moving backup power generators to higher ground).
ID: 67, Created: Amos NECCI, 2017-09-04 14:31:00 – Last Updated: Elisabeth KRAUSMANN, 2022-07-14 16:11:55

Attachments

NoDescriptionFile Size
1.ABC13346.62KB
2.abc13_Monday update346.62KB
3.CSB Executive Summary of Arkema accident2.44MB
4.Houston Chronicle 418.44KB
5.RT America 688.19KB
6.Wall Street Journal 212.47KB