Tags: Mechanical Integrity Process Safety Management Regulation Risk
In 2025, the U.S. refining industry recorded approximately nine publicly reported fires and explosions. Notable events at Chevron’s El Segundo facility and HF Sinclair’s Navajo refinery underscore the persistent risks associated with mechanical failure and process safety gaps. This report analyzes why these statistics, though seemingly modest, demand a continued focus on maintenance and hazard identification to prevent future high-consequence events.

As 2025 closed, the U.S. refining industry recorded approximately nine publicly reported refinery fires and explosions. This number might sound modest at first glance, but it tells a broader story about operational risk, mechanical integrity, and process safety performance in one of the most hazard-intensive sectors of American industry. (1)
According to an annual refinery fire incident fact-box compiled from Reuters reporting and widely disseminated by outlets such as Investing.com, U.S. refineries experienced nine significant fire/explosion events over the course of 2025, spanning operators like Chevron, Marathon, Valero, Phillips 66, CITGO, Hunt Refining, PBF Energy, and CVR Energy. (1)
These incidents included both high-visibility industrial fires and explosions significant enough to trigger emergency response, emergency medical treatment, production impacts, or regional market implications.
Among the most notable refinery fires in 2025:
Other fires were reported at refineries across states, including Louisiana, New Jersey, Alabama, Kansas, and California, most of which were quickly contained but counted toward the year's incident total. (1)
At first blush, nine incidents in a year that sees scores of industrial locations operate around the clock may sound low. But consider:
As 2026 unfolds, refining leaders and safety professionals will likely reflect on 2025 as a year with a manageable number of reported fires and explosions but one reminding the industry that frequency statistics don't capture severity risk, near misses, or latent hazards tied to mechanical integrity programs.
Ultimately, a low annual count is welcome, but ongoing investment in inspection, maintenance, hazard identification, and proactive process safety management remains critical to prevent the next high-consequence event.
Key parameters and mitigating actions for variables that may dramatically affect the intended design life of your asset
A maintenance system designed in which elements work together as a quality system for maximum returns
AOC delivers the policies, procedures, work processes, knowledge and actions such as preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance, and condition monitoring tasks.
Is your plant's MI program compliant? Use our checklist to assess your current program against industry standards and receive expert recommendations for improvement.
Create mechanical integrity (MI) program value rather than it being seen as a necessary cost to minimize.
A high level overview introducing Mechanical Integrity and Risk Based Inspection
What impact does Risk Based Inspection (RBI) have on my organization?
Is your Risk Based Inspection (RBI) program aligned with the API 580 Recommended Practice? Are you ready for certification?
What's actually going on inside all of that fancy software? An introduction to the API 581 methodology.
A deep dive into quantitative Risk Based Inspection (RBI) as outlined in API 581.
A formal acceptable risk policy standardizes risk tolerance, assigns decision authority by risk level, and requires escalating approvals for higher risk, improving consistency, transparency, and resource prioritization while preventing unmanaged risk exposure.
Unified framework integrating MI, RCM, PHA, and SIL/SIS into one risk-based system using a common matrix, shared failure modes, and closed-loop feedback to align actions, prioritize resources, and ensure consistent, real-world risk reduction.
MOC fails not from lack of knowledge, but from conflict with operational pressures. Speed is rewarded over rigor, definitions are unclear, ownership is weak, and risk reviews become procedural, allowing changes, cumulative risk, and hazards to go unmanaged.
Organizations that follow the spirit of risk-based inspection rather than its minimum requirements use a definable, structured, auditable process to confirm that an alternate inspection technique provides equal or better risk reduction than a baseline method.
Practical guide for implementing a Mechanical Integrity and RBI program for U.S. oil and gas wellfield, gathering, and midstream facilities. Aligns lifecycle asset management, inspection, and risk control with API standards, PHMSA pipeline rules, and OSHA PSM requirements.
Safety-first organizations consistently outperform on reliability when priorities are truly enforced, not just stated.
Don’t let your RBI program become a "paperwork exercise." Learn how to distinguish between a qualified technical partner and a software-only contractor to ensure true operational safety.
Why companies overlook Mechanical Integrity: It's expensive, exposes risk, requires specialized knowledge, and is difficult to audit. Learn the 10 structural, cultural, and economic reasons MI is the weakest PSM element.
Discover why equipment failure is the root cause of most catastrophic incidents. Mechanical Integrity (MI) is the non-negotiable foundation that prevents loss of containment and protects your entire PSM system. Learn the 8 reasons MI is essential.
PHMSA vs. OSHA: Understanding the Overlap Hydrocarbon facilities like pipelines, refineries, and terminals often fall under both PHMSA (DOT) and OSHA (DOL). Learn where each agency's jurisdiction begins and ends, and how to coordinate your integrity programs for compliance.
Comments
There are no comments for this article.