Huntsman USA Plant Workers Hurt in Chemical Fire

Initial Email Enquiry –

The January 11 chemical fire burned two plant workers and caused minor injuries to six others

(Washington, DC – January 16, 2004) The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) today announced it would not conduct a full investigation of Sunday's chemical accident at Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation in Port Neches, Texas. CSB investigators are en route back to Washington after two days at the plant site.

The January 11 chemical fire burned two plant workers and caused minor injuries to six others. Four workers, including the two second-degree burn victims, were treated and released at local hospitals. Board investigators say the fire occurred during an attempt to prepare a process pipe for maintenance within a unit that produces methyl tert-butylether (MTBE), a fuel additive. The design of the pipe included a long, shallow dip where residual feedstock chemicals had accumulated, unknown to plant personnel. In preparation for the planned maintenance on January 11, workers directed steam through the pipe, inadvertently causing the residual chemicals inside to overheat and decompose. Accumulating pressure ruptured the pipe, releasing a flammable vapor cloud that then ignited, investigators believe.

The pipe involved in the accident was seldom used at the10 year old facility. After its last use in September, the pipe was purged with nitrogen gas, but owing to the pipe's design not all liquid chemicals werer emoved.In addition to the CSB, a team from Huntsman has been investigating the incident. "Huntsman has already instituted significant corrective actions in response to Sunday's fire and is surveying the rest of the plant to determine if similar conditions may exist elsewhere," said CSB lead investigator . "We appreciate Huntsman's excellent cooperation with our team and look forward to reviewing the results of their completed investigation." "This unfortunate accident emphasizes once again the importance of designing lines and equipment to facilitate safe plant operations," said CSB Chairman. "Critical equipment should be designed so that workers can verify the absence of hazardous material before undertaking maintenance."

The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. The agency's board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of such events, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in safety managements ystems. Typically, the investigations involve extensive witness interviews, examination of physical evidence, and chemical and forensic testing.The Board does not issue citations or fines but does make safety recommendations to plants, industry organizations, labor groups, and regulatory agencies such as OSHA and EPA.

1st Response –

You may like to know that I followed up this incident with Huntsman in Texas as part of our ongoing investigations into protective clothing.
The HSE manager was very helpful and gave full details as listed below:
The two men were caught in a severe total engulfment flash fire that lasted a few seconds according to eye witness's.
Both were wearing Nomex which I suspect, from the detailed conversation we had, was the basic Nomex III manufactured in the USA. but there was no other information to confirm this or the density of garment which appeared on the lower side.
Nevertheless the HSE manager was really full of praise at the protection afforded by the one piece coverall.
As shown in all the tests that BP has either witnessed or had undertaken themselves, the Nomex garments did not burn but split open in the intense fire and body movement of the men to run out of the fireball.
In one case the worker ran though the plant clad only in his underwear as the garment had totally split open and fallen off as he ran. The key point is that despite the garment falling away it prevented any significant burns to the body during the intensity of the initial fireball. The 2nd (semi-thickness) and 3rd (full-thickness) degree burns were all to the head, face, hands and ankles and will require a degree of skin grafts.
One of the men had also been wearing Nomex foul weather outer garments.
Note: ankles are interesting as again, in all the flash fire tests witnessed by BP of Nomex garments, there was always some 'shrinkage' of the garment at ankle level, leaving exposed ankle on either one or both legs.

The HSE manager was not aware of any other type of Nomex or the different densities available.
Given BP's experience of multiple testing of garments, both Nomex from USA and Europe, testing of other materials and occasional real time incidents, this incident appears to verify again the added protection of the European manufactured garment Nomex C, with the added Kevlar fibres. It is entirely possible that if the workers at Huntsmen had the European Nomex C that the garments would have held together reducing the burn injury.

BP will be continuing comparative live fire burn tests of Nomex garments against Westex Indura Ultrasoft treated garments at the BTTG test house in Cheshire during February/March, subject to Lab availability.

2^nd Response –

Please find attached a brief summary of an incident at one of our US plants. Messages are clear I think. Also - in terms of the recordable injury I mentioned at N Tees the investigation has concluded the cause of the fall was a pebble on an otherwise clear path.
Click here to view a brief summary of a TBHP line Incident at Pomtbe (Word doc).

End of email correspondence on Topic to date

Author’s identities are concealed for privacy and security reasons. Further information on the information contained in this topic can be directed to the JOIFF secretariat.