Annual flash fire incidents are decreasing
OSHA data tracks 571 severe flash fire incidents, averaging 54 cases annually. Thermal burns account for 96.1% of these injuries, representing the most common nature of harm reported in these events.
Flash fires frequently impact multiple body parts, with 52.9% of cases involving extensive damage. These injuries often require prolonged hospitalization and intensive treatment for severe burns to the cheek, fingers, and extremities.
The 10-year trend shows a 29.3% decrease in reported incidents, though recent data indicates a 17.8% increase over the last five years. Petroleum and coal products remain the primary source in 48.8% of all recorded flash fire events.
Manufacturing and construction industries lead in incident frequency, accounting for 24.7% and 18.4% of cases respectively. These sectors face heightened risks due to the routine handling of flammable gases and volatile chemical substances.
Top causes based on OSHA incident reports
Flash fires typically occur when flammable vapors or gases encounter an ignition source during routine tasks. Common scenarios involve the transfer of petroleum products, the use of torches near residual fumes, or gas leaks from faulty couplers and tanks. These incidents often happen when fuel spills during refueling or when equipment maintenance fails to account for trapped flammable gases.
| Injury Type | Incidents | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Thermal burns | 545 |
| 2 | Severe wounds or internal injuries and other injuries | 5 |
| 3 | Burns and toxic effects (including smoke inhalation) | 4 |
| 4 | Fractures | 3 |
| 5 | Burns, corrosions, electrical injuries— unspecified | 2 |
| 6 | Injuries to internal organs and major blood vessels | 1 |
| 7 | Effects of electric current | 1 |
| 8 | Other or multiple types of burns | 1 |
Employers must comply with 29 CFR 1910.106 regarding the safe storage and handling of flammable liquids. Additionally, 29 CFR 1910.110 mandates specific safety protocols for liquefied petroleum gases to prevent accidental ignition. Failure to maintain equipment or provide adequate ventilation for vapor dispersal often constitutes a violation of these federal safety standards.
Where these injuries occur most frequently
Manufacturing accounts for 24.7% of all flash fire cases, followed closely by construction at 18.4%. These industries rely heavily on fuel-powered machinery and chemical processes that create constant exposure to flammable substances.
In high-risk sectors, employers are required to follow 29 CFR 1910.132 for personal protective equipment and 29 CFR 1910.1200 for hazard communication. These regulations ensure that workers are protected from thermal hazards and informed about the specific risks associated with the chemicals they handle daily.
From actual OSHA investigation files
Reported incidents reveal a recurring pattern of flash fires triggered by simple maintenance tasks or refueling errors. Many cases involve the ignition of residual fumes during equipment repair or the accidental spilling of fuel during routine transfers, often resulting in severe burns to the hands, upper arms, and face.
"An employee was fueling a gasoline-powered pressure washer with a safety fuel can. During the transfer the fuel ignited, causing a fire. The employee sustained burns to his nose, and his right hand and forearm."
"An employee was using a torch to burn off liquid petroleum gas from old 100-pound cylinders so they could be recycled. When he went to move a tank, some gas spilled onto the ground, then ignited in a flash that engulfed him. He was burned on the face, hands, and back and was hospitalized."
"An employee was kneeling, lighting the pilot for a gas range, when gas that had leaked from a quick coupler at the back of the range ignited. The employee suffered serious burns to both arms and her neck."
"An employee was handling a portable gas can when gas spilled on him. A lighter caused the fumes to ignite while he was in his truck. The employee sustained burns to his hands and abdomen."
"Employees were performing repairs on a propane tank at the front of a school. A torch was being used to melt a cable when residual fumes from the propane tank ignited. One employee sustained burns to their upper and lower body and was hospitalized. A second employee sustained minor burns."
"Mechanics were straightening a ladder on the derrick in the shop using an acetylene torch and a 10-ton hydraulic jack. As the mechanics were extending the jack to straighten out the ladder, the cylinder on the jack was turning and the quick-connect fitting ended up against the footrail of the derrick. This caused the nipple to break and a mist of oil was released from the jack. The oil mist ignited resulting in a flash fire. The injured employee sustained second- to third-degree burns burns to the right hand, the left cheek, and the left side of their neck as well as burns to both arms. The employee was hospitalized."
"An employee was filling propane cylinders at a customer location when a flash fire occurred, resulting in burns to the face that required hospitalization."
"An employee was servicing oilfield equipment. As he was swapping sides on a dual-choke manifold to check for wear, a flash fire occurred, resulting in burns to his face and the top of his right hand."
"An employee was inspecting the facility. There was a frozen injection line. The employee was going to put methanol in the line to thaw it out. He isolated the line to pour in the methanol and was bleeding off the gas inside the isolated line. He opened up the needle valve. A flash fire occurred. He reached up to shut the needle valve and sustained burns to his left ear, face, and left hand. The employee was hospitalized."
"During the fabrication of a metal railing, an employee was heating a metal bar with an acetylene torch to prepare the bar for bending. After heating the bar, the acetylene torch was extinguished and placed in the open end of a 4 rectangular tube. Acetylene from the torch leaked into the tube. Several minutes later, the employee used a hand grinder that produced sparks which ignited the acetylene. The employee sustained facial burns."
The ClaimsBoost Research Team aggregates official government data to help workers understand workplace injury trends and their coverage options.
ClaimsBoost is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. ClaimsBoost is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to any government agency. Performance scores, rankings, and statistics displayed on this site are calculated by ClaimsBoost using publicly available government data from OSHA severe injury reports. Individual results may vary. Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice or a guarantee of benefits. If you need legal help, we can connect you with licensed attorneys in your area.Some written content on this page was created with the assistance of AI to help interpret and explain the data. AI can make mistakes — all content has been reviewed for accuracy, but we encourage you to verify any information that is important to your situation.