Fatal Isobutylene Vapor Cloud Explosion
KMCO LLC Fatal Isobutylene Explosion
KMCO LLC (Custom Chemical Processing)
📍 Crosby, TX
Incident: April 2, 2019  •  CSB Report: December 21, 2023
1
Fatalities
0
CSB Recommendations
📋 Incident Summary

On April 2, 2019, at 10:51 AM, an isobutylene vapor cloud exploded at the KMCO LLC chemical facility in Crosby, Texas, fatally injuring one worker, seriously burning two others, and injuring at least 28 more. The explosion followed the catastrophic failure of a cast iron y-strainer in the liquid isobutylene supply piping to a batch reactor. When the y-strainer failed, more than 10,000 pounds of isobutylene released to atmosphere. Workers manually approached the vapor cloud to close isolation valves. The isobutylene exploded while two operators were still within or near the vapor cloud.

The CSB found that cast iron -- brittle and unsuitable for hazardous chemical service for nearly a century -- had been used in the isobutylene piping. The y-strainer's failure was consistent with brittle fracture caused by pressure from liquid thermal expansion in isolated piping that lacked a relief device. KMCO's PHAs had never identified this scenario. An insurance company had recommended remote isolation for isobutylene systems nine years prior -- the recommendation was never implemented. No facility alarm was activated during the incident.

The CSB's final report, released December 21, 2023, did not issue formal recommendations because the KMCO facility was purchased by Altivia Oxide Chemicals in 2020, which dismantled the sulfurized isobutylene equipment. The lessons from KMCO apply broadly to any facility handling highly flammable liquefied gases.

🔎 Key Findings
Finding 1
Cast Iron Used in Isobutylene Service
Cast iron is a brittle material widely recognized as unsuitable for flammable or toxic chemical service. NFPA 58 has prohibited cast iron in LPG piping since 1931. Its use in KMCO's isobutylene system directly contributed to the y-strainer failure.
Finding 2
Liquid Thermal Expansion Not Evaluated
The charge pump inlet piping -- where the y-strainer was located -- could be isolated with no pressure relief device. When isolated and heated by solar or ambient conditions, liquid isobutylene generated high pressure not identified in any KMCO hazard evaluation.
Finding 3
No Remote Isolation Capability
Workers were required to physically enter the isobutylene vapor cloud to manually close isolation valves. Remote isolation equipment that would have allowed the release to be stopped from a safe location was not installed, despite a 2010 insurance recommendation.
Finding 4
Emergency Response Required Entering the Vapor Cloud
KMCO's response culture expected operators to take offensive action to stop releases quickly. Workers moved toward the isobutylene vapor cloud to manually isolate the leak -- placing them directly in the explosion zone.
Finding 5
Facility Alarm Not Activated
KMCO's plant-wide alarm system was never activated during the incident. Workers without radios received no emergency notification. Most workers did not know how to activate the system for an actual emergency versus the weekly test.
Finding 6
10,000+ Lbs Isobutylene Released
More than 10,000 pounds of isobutylene were released before isolation was achieved -- sufficient to produce a large vapor cloud that engulfed portions of the facility and created catastrophic explosion potential.
🔍 Root Causes
1
Inappropriate Material of Construction
Cast iron was used in a high-pressure isobutylene piping system. Its brittleness makes it unsuitable for applications involving pressure cycling, thermal expansion, and flammable chemicals -- a fact undetected by KMCO's hazard evaluation or MI program.
2
Liquid Thermal Expansion -- Unrecognized Hazard
The potential for liquid thermal expansion to generate dangerous pressure in isolated piping was not identified in any KMCO hazard evaluation. API 521 specifically recommends pressure relief protection where liquid thermal expansion is a credible hazard.
3
No Remote Isolation -- Workers Entered the Hazard Zone
The absence of remotely operated emergency isolation valves required workers to enter the flammable vapor cloud to stop the release. This directly caused the fatal and serious injuries.
4
Offensive Emergency Response Culture
KMCO's response culture expected operators to act offensively to stop releases. CCPS guidance is clear: written policies must define what operators should and should not do during chemical releases -- entering a flammable vapor cloud to close valves is not acceptable.
5
Alarm System Not Effective in Emergency
The facility alarm system was not activated in an emergency for which it was specifically designed. Workers responsible for activation did not know how to use it for actual emergencies, and it was not a mandatory step in the emergency response procedure.
☑ CSB Recommendations
→ No Formal Recommendations Issued
The CSB did not issue formal recommendations with this report. The KMCO facility was purchased by Altivia Oxide Chemicals in 2020, which dismantled the sulfurized isobutylene equipment involved in the incident. The lessons documented in this report are applicable to any facility handling highly flammable liquefied gases under pressure.
💡 Lessons Learned
⚠ Cast iron should never be used in piping or equipment containing flammable or toxic chemicals. If cast iron components exist in your process piping in hazardous service, they warrant immediate review and likely replacement.
⚠ Liquid thermal expansion is a credible overpressure mechanism in any isolated piping containing a liquid that can be heated. Every deadleg and blocked-in segment in flammable or toxic service must be evaluated in the PHA and protected with a relief device.
⚠ Remote isolation equipment exists specifically to prevent what happened at KMCO: workers entering a vapor cloud to manually stop a release. If your emergency response requires approaching the release point, remote isolation is not optional.
⚠ Emergency response plans must clearly define which incidents operators may respond to and which require the qualified ERT. Entering a flammable vapor cloud is never an acceptable operator response -- this boundary must be in writing and trained.
⚠ A facility alarm system that nobody knows how to activate in a real emergency is not a safeguard. Emergency notification must be trained to the point of muscle memory -- not just to the level of passing a weekly test.
PSM Elements: MI · PHA · SOP · TRN · EAP
🔨 Safety Meeting Toolbox Talk
Topic: Isobutylene and Flammable Gas Hazards, Remote Isolation, and Emergency Response
💬Does your facility use cast iron components anywhere in piping or equipment that contains flammable or toxic chemicals? If so, those components should be flagged for immediate hazard review.
💬Are there isolated or deadlegged piping segments in flammable or toxic service in your unit that could be heated by solar radiation or ambient conditions? Do those segments have pressure relief protection for liquid thermal expansion?
💬Does your facility have remotely operated emergency isolation valves on piping containing highly flammable liquefied gases? Can you stop a release from a safe location without entering the hazard zone?
💬Does your emergency response plan clearly define whether operators should take offensive action to stop a chemical release -- or whether that is the exclusive responsibility of the Emergency Response Team?
💬Does everyone at this facility know how to activate the emergency alarm system for a real emergency -- not just the weekly test? Is it a mandatory first step in your emergency response procedure?
💬When did your PHA last specifically evaluate liquid thermal expansion as an overpressure hazard in isolated sections of flammable liquid piping? Were all relevant segments identified and protection verified?
✎ Team Action Items
✓Identify all cast iron components in your unit's flammable or toxic chemical service piping and flag them for engineering review -- cast iron is not an acceptable material for hazardous chemical applications
✓Review your unit P&IDs and identify all sections of flammable liquid piping that can be blocked in -- verify each is protected against liquid thermal expansion with a pressure relief device
✓Confirm whether your facility has remotely operated emergency isolation valves for highly flammable liquefied gases -- if none exist, raise the gap to your safety team
✓Review your emergency response plan to confirm it specifies whether operators should or should not take manual isolation actions during a flammable release, and that all training is consistent with that policy
🔗 PSM Failures Behind This Incident

This incident traced to breakdowns across 5 PSM elements (MI · PHA · SOP · TRN · EAP). Each represents a documented gap that process safety documentation and consulting can close before a similar event occurs at your facility.

Mechanical Integrity (MI)
Equipment must be designed, inspected, and maintained to operate safely in its intended service. Mechanical integrity failures — degraded equipment, missed inspections, deferred repairs — contributed to loss of containment here.
Supporting documents in our library →
Process Hazard Analysis (PHA)
A structured PHA or HAZOP study exists to identify exactly these scenarios before they occur. When PHA is absent, superficial, or overdue for revalidation, hazards operate unseen until they kill someone.
Supporting documents in our library →
Operating Procedures (SOPs)
Operators cannot reliably hold safe operating limits without clear, current, enforced procedures. Deviation from acceptable operating conditions — a root cause here — is a direct consequence of SOP failure.
Supporting documents in our library →
Training & Operator Competency
Workers must understand process hazards — not just the steps on the page. Training records, refresher frequency, and verified competency are all OSHA PSM requirements that gaps here violated.
Supporting documents in our library →
Emergency Planning & Response
When process safety barriers fail, emergency response capability determines whether the outcome is controlled or catastrophic. Gaps in emergency preparedness amplified the consequences here.
Supporting documents in our library →
Process Safety Management Consulting & Document Library
📂
PSM Document Library
32 ready-to-deploy PSM documents covering all 14 OSHA elements — procedures, checklists, and audit templates built for facilities operating under 29 CFR 1910.119.
Browse the Library →
📊
Free PSM Health Score
Find out where your PSM program stands across all 14 OSHA elements. Our free health score surfaces your biggest gaps in under 10 minutes — no account required.
Check Your Score →
📞
Consulting Services
PHA facilitation, PSM program builds, compliance audits, and OSHA inspection support. Transparent flat-fee pricing — no retainer required to get started.
View Pricing →
📋 Explore the full incident library: All 132 CSB Case Studies →