Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

download Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

of 19

Transcript of Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    1/19

    PEMEX LPG BLEVE Explosion

    San Juan Ixhuatepec, Mexico City, Mexico19 November 1984

    At approximately 05:35 AM on 19 November 1984, a series of catastrophic

    explosions and a major fire occurred at the government owned and operated

    PEMEX (Petroleous Mexicanos) LPG Terminal at San Juan Ixhuatepec, Mexico

    City, in Mexico. The fires lasted until 11:00 PM. As a direct consequence of these

    events, 574 individuals were killed and 7,231 were injured, of whom 144 later died

    in the hospital. Most of the firefighters who responded to the scene were killed by

    the continuing explosions. Additionally, some 39,000 people were renderedhomeless or were evacuated, and the terminal was destroyed. The severe traffic

    jams caused by the fleeing residents near the plant blocked access to the area by

    emergency and rescue teams.

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    2/19

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    3/19

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    4/19

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    5/19

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    6/19

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    7/19

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    8/19

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    9/19

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    10/19

    Plant Description

    It was a fairly modern plant, only 25 years old, built to API standards. It functionedas an LPG bulk storage and distribution depot. The facility included six spherical

    storage tanks and 48 horizontal bullets. The overall storage capacity was about

    16,000 m3. Three refineries supplied the facility with LPG on a daily basis through

    pipelines. At the time of the disaster, the storage tanks together contained about14,000 m3 of LPG (80% propane and 20% butane).

    When the PEMEX plant was built, the nearest housing was about 300 meters from

    the plant boundary, but by the time the disaster occurred, low-income, residential

    housing had encroached to within 100 meters of the site perimeter. The houses were

    of flimsy construction and were believed to have had an average of five inhabitants

    per house.

    There were also two neighboring installations engaged in the distribution of bottledLPG, and each had about 20 storage bullets. Both of these facilities were sufficiently

    close to be badly damaged and contribute to the disaster.

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    11/19

    Number of

    Vessels

    Individual

    Nominal

    Capacity (m3)

    Total

    Capacity (m3)

    Total

    Inventory (m3)

    Spheres 2 2,400 4,800 4,320

    Spheres 4 1,500 6,000 3,000

    Bullets 4 270 1,080 972

    Bullets 14 180 2,520 2,268

    Bullets 6 54 324 292

    Bullets 3 45 135 121

    Bullets 21 36 756 680

    Total 54 15,615 13,653

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    12/19

    What Happened (1/4)

    At the time of the accident, the plant was being filled from the Minatitlan Refinery,

    about 400 km away via the 8-inch Minatitlan-Mexico LPG pipeline, as on the

    previous day, the plant had become almost empty. The two large spheres and the 48

    bullets were filled to about 90% of capacity, and the 4 smaller spheres, to about

    50%.

    The cause of the accident seems to have been the overfilling of the 4 largest bullets in

    the southwest corner of the plant located immediately in front of the two larger

    storage spheres and the failure of their pressure relief valves to lift, resulting inoverpressure in an 8-inch line between those 4 bullets and the nearby spheres.

    At 5:25 AM, a drop in pressure was noticed in the refinery control room and also at

    a pipeline pumping station. The 8-inch line between the spheres and the four bullets

    had ruptured, causing the sudden pressure drop. Unfortunately, though, the

    operators in the refinery could not identify the cause of the pressure drop, and

    continued pumping.

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    13/19

    What Happened (2/4)

    The release of LPG from the ruptured 8-inch line, driven by the continued

    pumping, produced an expanding cloud of LPG gas that quickly grew to a size of

    200 m x 150 m x 2 m high. There was a light, southwesterly breeze, estimated at

    about 0.4 m/s that morning, and the expanding gas cloud slowly drifted southwest

    down a slight slope. It drifted over nearby residential housing, and 10 minutesafter the rupture, at 5:35 AM, the expanding LPG cloud reached a flare pit about

    100 meters West of the point of release.

    When the drifting gas cloud reached the flare, it ignited, resulting in a massiveUnconfined Vapor Cloud Explosion, creating a 360 meter fireball and a violent

    ground shock, which was the first of the nine explosions to be recorded on the

    seismograph of Mexico City University, some 30 kilometers away.

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    14/19

    What Happened (3/4)

    From the original point of rupture, there was a directional flame that was

    impinging on one of the smaller spheres. Within 12 minutes, the small sphere had

    BLEVEd, creating another fireball estimated at 300 meters in diameter. It was

    this this second explosion that did most of the structural damage to the

    surrounding houses. During the next hour and a half, seven more large andviolent explosions occurred, the last being recorded on the university seismograph

    at around 7:00 AM.

    The 4 smaller spheres and 5 of the larger bullets BLEVEd in rapid succession,with many numerous, smaller explosions continuing until about 11:00 AM due to

    the BLEVE'ing of at least 10 of the smaller bullets and to further unconfined

    vapor cloud explosions.

    Large numbers of vessel fragments and ruptured bullets weighing up to 20 tons

    were propelled hundreds of meters, with some fragments traveling more than 400

    meters. One 20-ton bullet traveled 1,200 meters, and 11 more bullets were

    propelled more than 100 meters. Only four of the original 48 bullets remained on

    their supports.

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    15/19

    What Happened (4/4)

    The two, larger diameter spheres did not explode, but their legs had no thermal

    insulation and soon buckled due to the intense heat. The two spheres thus quickly

    collapsed and catastrophically failed, releasing their contents to fuel the large

    number of major ground fires within the plant. LPG rained down, and surfaces

    covered in liquid LPG were set alight.

    The damage to the nearby houses was severe. There were additional explosions

    within the houses, and many people suffered injuries and serious burns from

    flaming drops ofLPG. Virtually all the houses within 300 meters of the plant werecompletely destroyed.

    It was not until very late in the disaster that somebody at the refinery pressed the

    emergency shut down button, stopping the pumps and the flow of LPG to the

    facility. In fact, the pumping and flow of LPG through the pipeline and into the

    burning and exploding plant continued at the normal rate of 75,000 bbl per day

    until 6:40 AM, more than one hour after the initial explosion. At that rate, the

    raging fires were fed during that initial hour with an additional 3,175 bbl of LPG.

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    16/19

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    17/19

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    18/19

    Responsibility (1/2)

    The total destruction of the terminal occurred because the overall basis of plant

    safety was insufficient, mis-design in the layout of the plant, inadequate fire

    protection and firefighting systems, a lack of gas detection systems and ineffective

    emergency isolation systems. In particular,

    The spheres were not equipped with adequate cooling water systems to prevent

    BLEVEs and their legs were not thermally insulated to prevent collapse. The fire

    pumps were too close to the spheres and bullets, and thus, the initial blast

    completely disabled the terminals firewater system.

    Failure to shut down the pipeline system promptly contributed greatly to the

    severity of the accident.

    Mis-design of the manifolding of the vessels in each row to common headers

    contributed to the severity of the accident by not providing effective isolation, so

    that when one vessel in a row over-pressured and failed, resulting in a BLEVE, the

    others in the row failed similarly, in quick succession.

  • 8/9/2019 Case Study 4 - Pemex.pdf

    19/19

    Responsibility (2/2)

    Also, either due to damage from the initial explosion and the BLEVEd bullets,

    or due to over pressuring, the fill lines to the four smaller spheres leaked and the

    gas ignited, creating fires which impinged on the bottoms of the spheres causing

    them to overpressure and explode.

    Traffic jams, which built up as local residents tried to escape from the area,

    blocked the arrival of emergency services.