Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp
Abstract
This paper briefly recapitulates some of the major accidents in chemical process industries which occurred during 1926–1997.
These case studies have been analysed with a view to understand the damage potential of various types of accidents, and the
common causes or errors which have led to disasters. An analysis of different types of accidental events such as fire, explosion
and toxic release has also been done to assess the damage potential of such events. It is revealed that vapour cloud explosion
(VCE) poses the greatest risk of damage. The study highlights the need for risk assessment in chemical process industries. 1999
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
0950–4230/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 0 - 4 2 3 0 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 6 2 - X
362 F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (1999) 361–378
Table 1
State-wise distribution of major hazardous units (MAH) and hazard-
ous substances
Andhra Pradesh 35 24
Bihar 12 11
Delhi 19 8
Goa 8 9
Gujarat 112 32
Karnataka 26 14
Kerala 19 19
Maharashtra 97 24
Madhya Pradesh 33 10
Tamil Nadu 41 31
Uttar Pradesh 40 14
West Bengal 40 23
Assam 7 10
Haryana 7 4
Jammu Kashmir 7 4
Nagaland 1 1
Orissa 13 10
Pondicherry 3 3
Punjab 12 6
Rajashthan 54 17
Table 3 Table 4
Information related to explosion in the chemical and allied industries Characteristics of accidental release from pipework and in-line equip-
(Lees, 1996) ment (Bellamy et al., 1989; Lees, 1996).
Table 5
The most gruesome transportation accidents dealing with hazardous chemicals
Pipeline transport
1981 S. Raface, Venezuela LPG Explosion 18/35
1984 Cubato, Brazil Gasoline Fire and explosion 508/31
1984 Ghari Dhoda, Pakistan LNG Explosion 60/11
1988 Mexico City, Mexico Crude oil Fire and explosion 12/80
1989 Nizhnevartovsk, Russia LPG Explosion and fire 462/290
Road transport
1975 Texas, USA LPG Explosion 16/35
1978 Los Afaques, Spain Propylene Explosion and fire 216/400
1978 Xilotopee, Mexico Butane Explosion 100/200
1987 Preston, UK Diesel oil Fire 12/16
1988 Karo, Nigeria Petrol Explosion and fire 15/35
1995 Madras, India Benzene Explosion and fire 115/10
Rail transport
1974 Decatur, USA Isobutane Explosion 7/152
1978 Tennessee, USA Propane Explosion 25/50
1981 Potosi, Mexico Chlorine Toxic release 29/1000
1983 Pojuca, Brazil Gasoline Fire 10/40
1983 Dhurabai, India Kerosine Explosion 47/15
1988 Arzanas, Russia Explosive Explosion 73/230
Table 6 Marshall, 1977, 1987; Kletz, 1988, 1991a; Lees & Ang,
Major factors leading to accident in the chemical industries (Lees, 1984; Kharbanda & Stallworthy, 1988; Hasstrup & Bro-
1996)
choff, 1990; Palmer, 1983; Prugh, 1991; Amendola,
No. of times Proportion Contini & Nichele, 1988; TPL, 1992; Khan & Abbasi,
(%) 1996, 1997; Koivisto, Vaija & Dohnal, 1989; Koivisto &
Nielsen, 1994; Chemical Industrial Digest, 1995; Loss
Equipment failure 223 29.2 Prevention bulletins, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984,
Operational failure 160 20.9
Inadequate material evaluation 120 15.7 1986).
Chemical process problems 83 10.9 The worst ever accident in the chemical process indus-
Material movement problems 69 9.0 tries involving toxic release occurred at Bhopal in 1984.
Ineffective loss prevention program 47 6.2 The worst ever fire-cum-explosion accident (on shore)
Plant site problems 27 3.5 occurred in Mexico in the same year. The worst ever
Inadequate plant layout 18 2.4
Structures not in conformity with use 17 2.2 off-shore accident occurred on Piper Alpha in 1988.
requirement
5. Case studies
Secondly, except in certain cases when ambient con- We present below brief case-histories of typical acci-
ditions conspire to enable very rapid spread of a fire, dents.
most fires take time to consolidate. If emergency pre-
paredness measures are in place, this time proves crucial 5.1. Accidents in refineries
in enabling control of the fire. On the other hand, when
an explosion takes place it does so instantly, giving no At a refinery in France, a spillage occurred on 4 Janu-
time for escape. ary 1966 when an operator was draining water from a
In a very large number of situations, explosions in 1200 m pressurised propane sphere. The propane vapour
chemical process industries are either caused by fire, or spread over a radius of 150 m and was ignited by a car
lead to a fire. A summary of major catastrophic accidents on the road. The pool of propane below the sphere
for the period 1928–1997 is presented in Tables 7–9. engulfed the vessel in flames. The resultant boiling-
This information was collected by various literature liquid-expanding-vapour explosion (BLEVE) killed the
sources (Nash, 1976; Gugan, 1979; Amesz, Francocci, fireman and 17 others. The conflagration took 48 hours
Primavera & Van der Pas, 1983; Lees, 1980, 1994, 1996; to control and caused extensive damage to the refinery.
368 F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (1999) 361–378
Table 7
List of major accidents in chemical process industries, 1926–1969
Table 8
List of major accidents in chemical process industries, 1970–1979
At a refinery at Pernis (Netherlands) in 1968, an over- At Texas city, USA (on 30 May 1978), one of the
flow of hydrocarbon caused a small explosion. This trig- LPG storage vessels in a petrochemical factory
gered another small explosion which in turn led to a (Mahoney, 1990) suffered overpressure while it was
major explosion with fire, extensively damaging an area being filled, due to failure of a pressure gauge and also
of about 300 m. Two people were killed and 85 injured of a relief valve. It cracked and leaked LPG. The leak
(Lees, 1996). ignited into a massive fire ball, which shattered the ves-
370 F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (1999) 361–378
Table 9
List of major accidents in chemical process industries, 1981–1997
sel, propelling its fragments as missiles. During the next tower and other facilities. Later investigations revealed
20 minutes five horizontal bullets and four vertical ones many shortcomings in the plant layout.
were damaged by missiles. The other two vessels were On 12 December 1987 a crude oil storage tank in a
also damaged in this way. refinery at Maharashtra, India, started boiling over, spill-
On 8 March 1984 an explosion in a refinery at Kerala ing its contents on the dike around it. The emergency
destroyed a fire tender along with the shed in which it services were alerted and tried to evacuate the contents.
was housed, besides a chemical warehouse, cooling After 4 hours of pumping out, the tank caught fire and
F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (1999) 361–378 371
exploded, spilling the contents. Eight hours of vigorous near the main gate of the HPCL refinery, caught fire at
fire fighting had to be carried out before the fire could 06:40 h and exploded, rocking Visakhapatnam city. The
be controlled. There was extensive damage to the pro- storage tanks were all full, with crude imports unloaded
perty. A liberal sizing of the dike and providing a separ- at the HPCL berth just a few days previously. The
ate dike for a large tank like this would have helped to second sphere exploded 15 minutes later and before
prevent the spread of fire to other tanks. noon, the others also caught fire. The blaze spread. Huge
An accident took place on 18 April 1989 in a 14 inch tongues of flame and thick black smoke billowed into
natural gas pipeline owned by a gas company in India. the sky and joined the hovering monsoon clouds. There
The pipeline was carrying compressed natural gas at a was a sharp shower in the morning and people wearing
pressure of about 295–298 psig from the compressor white shirts saw them turn black with soot. The rain
station to various consumers. The accident occurred water flooding the road also turned black and murky.
about 730 ft. from the compressor station. Security per- With both the entrances to the refinery blocked by
sonnel heard a loud sound at about 09:50 h and saw a burning tanks, neither the fire tenders nor the officials
huge cloud of black smoke emanating from the ruptured could enter the premises for several hours. Only when
pipeline which caught fire immediately. The flame rose the contents in the tanks were burnt out could they ven-
as high as 150 ft. during the initial stage. ture in. The death toll could have been higher had the
The fire damaged buildings consisting of the general fire started half-an-hour later when the first shift staff
stores and the office of the materials department. Two would have been present.
employees died and six others received burn injuries. Even more significant, as the accident occurred on a
Investigations revealed that the portion of the pipeline Sunday, the administrative personnel, who number over
which had blown off was extensively corroded compared 200, were not on duty. There were some contract labour-
with other portions of the pipeline. The underground ers along with the HPCL personnel in the Crude Distil-
pipeline was close to the materials department where old ling Unit which was shut down for routine maintenance
lead cells were stored. The corrosion could be due to the work. The shock of the initial explosion made people
leakage of spent weak acid which seeped through the think an earthquake had occurred. They ran helter-
ground and corroded the buried pipeline. skelter, leaving their belongings behind.
On 3 July 1987 an explosion occurred inside an ethyl- cyclohexane was oxidised to cyclohexanone and
ene oxide purification column at a chemical factory at cyclohexanol by air injection in the presence of a cata-
Antwerp, Belgium (Lees, 1996). The explosion was due lyst.
to decomposition of ethylene oxide. It was accompanied On the evening of 27 March 1974, it was discovered
by a fire ball, which started a number of secondary fires. that reactor number 5 was leaking cyclohexane. The fol-
These, together with blasts and missiles, caused exten- lowing morning an inspection revealed that the leak had
sive damage. Fourteen people were injured. extended by some 6 ft. This was a serious state of affairs
Faulty operations at the Tomsk-7 fuels reprocessing and a meeting was called to decide a course of action.
facility in Russia are believed to have resulted in the A decision was taken to remove reactor 5 and to install
‘running away’ of a solution of 500 litres of tributyl a bypass assembly to connect reactor 4 directly to reactor
phosphate (TBP) saturated with strong nitric acid, 6 so that the plant operation could continue.
resulting in explosive failure of the storage vessel and The openings to be connected on these reactors were
subsequently blowing out a wall of the reprocessing of 28 inch diameter, but the largest pipe which was avail-
building. TBP is an important organic solvent used in able on site and which might be suitable for the by-pass
acidic extraction steps in separation processes at fuel was of 20 inch diameter. The two flanges were at differ-
reprocessing facilities. Solutions of TBP, hydrocarbon ent heights so that the connection had to take the form
diluent, and HNO3 (known as ‘red oil’ because of the of a dogleg of three lengths. Calculations were done to
colour of nitrated hydrocarbons) undergo exothermic check that (a) the pipe had a large enough cross-sectional
reactions that can thermally ‘run away’ if heated to a area for the required flow, and (b) that it was capable of
temperature where the heat of reaction exceeds heat loss- withstanding the pressure as a straight pipe.
es. But no calculations were done which took into
A recent accident (14 May 1997) at Hanford was the account the forces arising from the dog-leg shape of the
result of a spontaneous (autocatalytic) chemical reaction pipe; no drawing of the by-pass pipe was made other
of the solution stored in a tank (Tank A-109) located in than in chalk on the workshop floor; and no pressure
the plutonium reclamation facility. This 1500 litre tank testing was carried out either on the pipe or on the com-
initially contained a solution of 0.35 M hydroxylamine plete assembly before it was fitted. A pressure test was
(OHNH2HNO3) and 0.25 M nitric acid called CCX sol- performed on the plant after the installation of the by-
ution. The unused solution in the tank had been slowly pass, but the equipment was tested to a pressure of 9
evaporating. The loss of water concentrated the solution kg/cm2. Further, the test was pneumatic not hydraulic
until conditions were reached that caused a spontaneous (Lees, 1996).
chemical decomposition reaction. The reaction created a The plant was restarted. Initially the by-pass assembly
rapid release of gases, which built up pressure inside the gave no trouble. On 29 May 1974 the bottom valve on
tank. The pressure blew the lid off the tank and severely one of the vessels was found to be leaking. The plant
damaged the room. No casualties were reported as no- was again shut down for repairs, and restarted on June
one was near at the time of the accident. 1. A sudden rise in pressure up to 8.5 kg/cm2 occurred
On 25 November 1997 explosion occurred in a chemi- early in the morning when the temperature in Reactor 1
cal factory manufacturing rubber products at Halol in was only 110°C and less in the other reactors. Later that
Panchmahal district of Gujrat state. Three persons were morning, the pressure reached 9.1–9.2 kg/cm2.
killed and 11 others injured (The Hindu, 1997b). The During the late afternoon an event occurred which
explosion occurred in one of the reactors. Detailed infor- resulted in the escape of large quantities of cyclohexane.
mation is awaited. This event was the rupture of the dog-leg shaped by-
pass system. It was perhaps aided by a fire on a nearby
5.2.1. The Flixborough disaster 8 inch pipe. The escaped cyclohexane soon caught a
The Flixborough plant of Nypro Limited, UK, was spark, and there was a massive unconfined vapour cloud
built for the production of caprolactum which is the basic explosion. The blast and the fire destroyed the cyclohex-
raw material for the production of Nylon 6. Cyclohex- ane plant as well as several other plants in the vicinity.
anol necessary for the production of caprolactum was Of those working on the site at the time, 28 were
produced by oxidation of cyclohexane. The latter chemi- killed and 36 others suffered injuries. Outside the plant,
cal, which in many of its properties is comparable with injuries and damage were widespread but no-one was
petrol, had to be stored. More importantly, large quan- killed. Of the 28 people who died 18 were in the control
tities of cyclohexane had to be circulated through the room. Some of the bodies had suffered severe damage
reactors under a working pressure of about 8.8 kg/cm2 from flying glass. The main office of the factory was
and a temperature of 155°C. The reaction is exothermic; demolished by the blast of the explosion. Mercifully, the
any escape of cyclohexane from the plant was therefore accident had occurred on a Saturday afternoon when the
dangerous. The cyclohexane plant at Flixborough con- offices were not occupied. If they had been, the death
sists of a stream of six reactors in series in which toll would have been much higher.
F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (1999) 361–378 373
Property damage extended over a wide area, and a skin troubles. The plant was sealed for 10 years and then
preliminary survey showed that 184 houses and 167 dismantled from the inside brick by brick, the rubble was
shops and factories had suffered to a greater or a embedded in concrete, and the concrete blocks were
lesser degree. sunk in the Atlantic. Five years later yet another accident
involving TCDD release occurred at Bolsover. It
5.2.2. Seveso disaster involved a runaway reaction in a trichlorophenol reactor,
On the morning of Saturday, 10 July 1976, a safety similar to the one that later occurred at Seveso. The reac-
valve vented on a reactor at the Icmesa Chemical Com- tion reached 250°C, the reactor exploded and the super-
pany at Seveso, a town of about 17 000 inhabitants some vising chemist was killed. The plant was closed down,
15 miles from Milan (Italy). A white cloud drifted over and then reopened after 2 weeks when it appeared that
part of the town, heavy rainfall brought the cloud to workers exposed had suffered no ill effects. But within
earth. The release occurred from a reactor producing 7 months, 79 persons complained of TCDD symptoms.
trichlorophenol, which is used to make a bactericide hex- The plant was dismantled and buried in a deep hole. But
achlorophenol and the herbicide 2,4,5 trichloro phenoxy the story did not end there; 3 years later contractors on
acetic acid. The reactor also contained the chemical gen- the site developed TCDD symptoms. The only apparent
erally referred to as TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzo possible source of contamination was a metal vessel
paradioxin). This substance was not an intended reaction which had been thoroughly cleaned and subjected to
product but an undesired by-product. An estimated 2 kg sensitive testing.
of TCDD were released, although this estimate is neces- The lesson that emerged from Seveso was that press-
sarily approximate. ure relief valves on plants handling highly toxic sub-
In normal operations the amount of TCDD made in stances should not discharge to the atmosphere but to a
the reactor was small, but on this occasion the reactor closed system.
had got out of control. The contents had got overheated
and the safety valve had vented. The higher temperature 5.2.4. The Bhopal disaster
in the reactor favoured the production of an abnormal The worst ever disaster in the history of the chemical
quantity of TCDD. industry occurred in Bhopal, India, on 3 December 1984.
In the immediate area of the release the vegetation A leak of methyl isocyanate from a chemical plant,
was contaminated and animals began to die. On the where it was used as an intermediate in the manufacture
fourth day a child fell ill and on the 5th day civil auth- of a pesticide, spread beyond the plant boundary and
orities declared a state of emergency in Seveso. An area caused death by poisoning of over 2500 people—injur-
of some 2 square miles was declared contaminated and ing about 10 times as many.
people were asked to avoid contact with the vegetation Methyl isocyanate boils at about 40°C at atmospheric
or eating anything from this area. The contaminated area pressure. According to press reports, the contents of the
was later sought to be closed completely. On 27 July the storage tank became overheated and boiled, causing the
first evacuation of some 250 people took place. By the relief valves to lift. The discharge of vapour—about 25
end of July, 250 cases of skin infection had been diag- t—was too great for the capacity of the scrubbing sys-
nosed. Some 100 people had been told to evacuate their tem. The escaping vapour spread beyond the plant
homes and some 2000 people had been given blood tests. boundary where a shanty town had sprung up. The cause
In early August it was found that the area contaminated of the overheating was contamination of the methyl iso-
was about five times larger than originally thought cyanate, by water or other materials, and several possible
(Lees, 1996). mechanisms were suggested. According to some reports,
cyanide was produced. Had Union Carbide conducted
5.2.3. Other accidents involving TCDD risk analysis (specifically maximum credible accident
There have been accidents involving TCDD release analysis) during the design of the MIC system or even
prior to the Seveso disaster. At Ludwigshafen, 55 people later, it would have learnt that in the event of a MIC
were exposed when there was accidental TCDD release leak the scrubbing system would be inadequate. This
in 1953, and many developed severe symptoms of would have enabled the industry to install better emerg-
TCDD poisoning. Various measures were taken to ency handling systems, thereby saving thousands of lives
decontaminate the plant building, including the use of (Abbasi, Krishnakumari & Khan, 1997).
detergents, the burning off of the surfaces, the removal
of insulating material and so on, but these were not 5.2.5. The Worms Explosion
effective and eventually the whole building had to be On 21 November 1988 an explosion occurred in a
destroyed. In another accident at Duphar in 1963, a leak liquid storage vessel of Proctor Gamble, Worms, Ger-
of 0.03–0.2 kg of TCDD occurred. Some 50 persons many. The explosion was supposed to be the worst
were involved in cleaning up the leakage, of whom four among ever explosion in cryogenic storage of liquefied
subsequently died, and about a dozen suffered occasional carbon dioxide. The storage tank was a horizontal-high-
374 F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (1999) 361–378
pressure vessel having a nominal capacity of 30 t of car- The following were the tell-tale conditions in and
bon oxide and was well connected to a relief and around PEPCON:
safety system.
쐌 lack of proper storage;
The main reasons for the explosion were identified as:
쐌 combustible fibre glass insulation and sources of fire;
(a) overheating causing excessive pressure and failure of
쐌 glass panel walls in the batch house;
the relief valve; (b) brittle failure of a tank at or near
쐌 inadequate spacing between adjacent process vessels
normal operation; (c) a combination of the above. A
and product storage tanks;
detailed investigation has been carried out by the Federal
쐌 no alarm to warn plant personnel, fire departments or
Government as well as Proctor Gamble to find the real
Henderson’s other citizens;
causes of the failure. It was found that tank was brittle
쐌 no dependable fire-fighting arrangement with sprink-
failure from two position (non uniform—faulty design).
lers and deluge system;
Due to excessive pressure, liquid carbon dioxide escap-
쐌 no modern, dependable, radio system to back-up dam-
ing from the relief valve reached a critical point and
aged telephone lines needed to call for help, co-ordi-
sealed the relief valve by forming dry ice. This prevented
nate response teams and warn the community;
the gas from escaping and hence an explosion took
쐌 lack of an effective emergency response plan at PEP-
place.
CON, within the surrounding industrial complex and
The explosion intensity was so great that it destroyed
within the town of Henderson.
two neighbouring units. An excess of pressure of more
than 1 atm was reported over a radius of 1000 m. The The explosion caused about $100 million in damage
shock wave velocity also exceeded 500 m/s. Fragments to the surrounding community and completely destroyed
of vessel of more than 100 kg were found more than a neighbouring marshmallow plant. About 350 persons
500 m from the site of the accident. Good planning of were injured. Two persons died—the plant manager and
the unit’s location ensured that no hazardous chemicals the controller.
were stored nearby, so only mechanical damage took
place. 5.2.7. The Phillips explosion
The consequences of explosion were three fatalities at The explosion at the Phillips petrochemical (similar
the site, more than 10 people hospitalised and an esti- to the present case study) plant in Pasadena, Texas, on
mated damage of $20 million with 3 months of pro- 23 October 1989 is one of the worst industrial accidents
duction lost. of the last 10 years.
The immediate cause was simple: a length of pipe was
5.2.6. Pepcon explosion opened up to clear a choke without bothering to see that
On 4 May 1988 a massive explosion destroyed a the isolation valve (which was operated by compressed
Pacific Engineering and Production Company air) had not been closed. The air hoses which supplied
(PEPCON) plant near Henderson, about 12 miles south power to the valve were connected up the wrong way
of Las Vegas, USA. around so the valve was open when its actuator was in
PEPCON was one of only two plants in the USA that the closed position. Identical couplings were used for the
produced ammonium perchlorate (AP); the other was the two connections so it was easy to reverse them. Accord-
Kerr-McGee plant, also located in Henderson about 2 ing to company procedure they should have been discon-
miles from the PEPCON plant. PEPCON reportedly pro- nected during maintenance but they were not. The valve
duced about one-third of the AP used as an oxidiser and could be locked open or closed but this hardly mattered
propellant in solid, composite rocket fuels for NASA’s as the lock was missing. The explosion occurred less
space shuttle and missiles. than 2 minutes after the leak started and two iso-butane
Although a fire started the PEPCON explosion, the tanks exploded 15 minutes later. The explosive force
cause of the fire was not easy to explain. After the was equivalent to 2.4 t of TNT; 23 people—all
explosion, PEPCON blamed the fire on a leaking under- employees—were killed and over 130 injured. Nearly 40
ground pipeline of Southwest Gas Company that tra- t of ethylene gas leaked and exploded.
versed PEPCON’S property. But the natural gas pipeline
had been installed about 10 years before the PEPCON 5.2.8. Panipat explosion
plant had been built, and although ruptured, it only con- One evening during August 1993 there was an
tributed to the fire and heat required to detonate the explosion at the National Fertiliser Limited (NFL) ferti-
second and the largest explosion. liser plant near Panipat, which later followed by toxic
The fire was also attributed to a welder’s torch but release and dispersion of the deadly gas, ammonia. An
one of the reports absolved the welder of any blame. accurate official report on what happened and how, has
Some blamed the batch dryer’s fibre glass insulation not as yet been made available. However, some reliable
which had a history of AP spills into the combustible sources reported that one evening an operator observed
insulation. a leak in one of the vessels, which he reported to the
F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (1999) 361–378 375
supervisor. To rectify the problem the vessel was iso- train from Nizhnevartovsk destined for the Red Sea
lated and repaired. After repair, the vessel was brought resort of Alder was approaching the leakage area when
back into operation without checking whether the iso- the driver noticed a fog in the area that had a strong
lation (slip plate) device had been removed. Pressure smell. The driver of another train approaching from the
gradually built up inside the vessel and after a few hours opposite direction (Alder to Nizhnevartovsk) saw much
an explosion (BLEVE) occurred, spreading the contents the same as he approached the west-bound train. Both
of the vessel over the area. As the plant was situated far trains were full, with a total of 1168 people on board,
from a populated area and the quantity was not too great, and as they approached the area, the turbulence caused
the consequences were not severe. by them mixed up LPG mist and vapour with the overly-
Four members of the operating team and two shift ing air to form a flammable cloud. One of the trains
engineers died, more than 25 people were injured and ignited the cloud. Several explosions took place in quick
more than 1000 people were adversely affected. The succession, followed by a ball of fire that was about 1
presence of proper safety arrangements prevented the mile wide and which raced down the railway track in
death toll and damage from being much greater. Severe both directions. Trees were flattened within a radius of
damage was inflicted on an area of around 2 km2 and 2.5 miles of the epicentre of the explosions and windows
the cost of the damage has been estimated to be around were broken up to 8 miles away. The accident left 462
$20 million. dead and 796 hospitalised with 70–80% burn injuries.
Fig. 9. FN curves for fire and explosion, and toxic release accidents. Fig. 11. FN curves for various accidental events.
F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (1999) 361–378 377
An illustrative table of fatality rates due to accidents 쐌 Pipeline transport of chemicals is comparatively safe,
in different countries is presented in Table 10. The provided that the line is carefully maintained and its
Netherlands has the lowest fatality rate per accident route does not pass through populated areas.
while Austria and Belgium have the highest. 쐌 With an increase in density of industries in a complex,
the probability of accidents as well as that of the dom-
ino effect increase sharply.
7. Conclusion
The study highlights the need for accident forecasting,
consequence assessment, and development of up-to-date
From a study of the available models of accidents and
emergency preparedness and disaster management plans
case studies, the following conclusions can be drawn.
in the chemical process industries.
쐌 Most of accidents take place due to malfunctioning of
a component of equipment and/or minor negligence
of personnel during operation or maintenance. References
쐌 Although the number of accidents per year has
declined through the 1980s, the extent of damage per Abbasi, S. A., Krishnakumari, P., & Khan, F. I. (1997). HOT topics:
global warming, ozone hole, diversity, acid rain, industrial haz-
accident has increased substantially. This is parti- ards, and disinfection. Chennai, India: Oxford Press.
cularly true in developing countries such as India. Amendola, A., Contini, S., & Nichele, P. (1988). MARS; the major
쐌 The damage potential of an accident depends upon the accident reporting system. Preventing Major Chemical and Related
chemical in use, causative factors, operating con- Process Accidents, 445, 1121–1141.
ditions and site characteristics. Amesz, J., Francocci, G., Primavera, R., & VanderPas, T. (1983). The
European abnormal occurrences reporting system. Euredata, 4, 6.2.
쐌 The damage potential in terms of the area affected is Badoux, R. A. J. (1983). Some experience of a consulting statistician
a maximum for toxic release and depends upon the in industrial safety and reliability. Third National Reliability Con-
type of chemical, meteorological conditions and site ference. See also Reliability Engineering (1985), 10, 219–228.
characteristics. Bellamy, I. J., Geyer, T. A. W., & Astley, J. A. (1989). Evaluation of
쐌 The impacts of fires and explosions extend over much the human contribution to pipework and in-line equipment failures
frequencies. HSE Contract Res. Rep. 15/1989. Technica Ltd, Lon-
lesser areas but the devastation caused is more don.
immediate and severe than in most cases of toxic Bruce, R.A.P. (1994). The offshore hydrocarbon releases (HCR) datab-
release (except in cases such as the MIC leak at Bho- ase. Hazards, XII, 107.
pal in 1989). Fire and explosions can also cause a Carson, P.A., & Mumford, C.J. (1988). Reporting and analysis of
‘domino’ effect (chain of accidents). industrial incident 1981–86. Industry and Environment, II(2),
11–19.
쐌 The number of fatalities per accident is highest for Chemical Industrial Digest (1995). Mumbai: Blockdale.
those involving explosions. Chowdhury, J., & Parkinson, G. (1992). OSHA tightens its hold.
Chemical Eng., 99(5), 37.
Table 10 Davenport, J.A. (1988). Hazards and protection of pressure storage and
Fatal accidents in manufacturing industry in different countries transport of LP-gas. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 20, 3–11.
(Raghavan & Swaminathan, 1996) Doyle, W.H. (1969). Industrial explosions and insurance. Loss Preven-
tion, 3, 11.
Fatality rate Doyle, W.H. (1981). Case histories in duct fire incident. Loss Preven-
tion, 14, 181.
Deaths per 1000 Deaths per 100 000 Drogaris, G. (1991). Major accidents reporting system: lessons learned
man-years workers per year from accidents notified. Community Documentation Centre on
Industrial Risk.
Argentina 0.020 Drogaris, G. (1993). Major accident reporting system. Amsterdam:
Austria 0.142 Elsevier.
Belgium 0.140 Geyer, T. A. W., & Bellamy, L. J. (1991). Pipe-work failure, failure
Canada 0.080 14 causes and the management factor. Paper C425/012, Institute of
Czechoslovakia 0.061 Mechanical Engineers, London.
France 0.068 11 Gugan, K. (1979). Unconfined vapour cloud explosion. Rugby: Insti-
Germany (FRG) 0.120 17 tute of Chemical Engineers.
Germany (GDR) 0.030 Gupta, K. C. (1990). Major accident hazard control system in India.
Italy 8 International Conference on Hazard Assessment and Disaster Miti-
Japan 0.010 5 gation in Petroleum and Chemical Process Industries, 10–14
Netherlands 0.009 4 December, Chennai.
Norway 0.050 Hasstrup, P., & Brochoff, K.C. (1990). Severity of accidents with haz-
Poland 0.066 ardous materials. Journal of Loss Prevention in Process Industries,
Spain 0.109 3, 33.
Switzerland 0.080 Health and Safety Executive (1988). COSHH assessments. London:
UK 0.020 4 HM Stationery Office.
USA 0.022 7 Houston, D.E.L. (1971). New approaches to the safety problem. Major
Loss Prevention, 210, 45–52.
378 F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (1999) 361–378
Khan, F.I., & Abbasi, S.A. (1995). Accident during transportation of Lewis, D. J. (1993). Case histories: accidents. Department of Chemical
hazardous chemicals. Chemical Weekly, 15–19May, 9. Engineering, Loughborough University of Technology, UK.
Khan, F.I., & Abbasi, S.A. (1996). Simulation of accidents in a chemi- Loss Prevention Bulletin. List of accidents, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984,
cal process industry using software MAXCRED. Indian Journal of 1986. Rugby: The Institute of Chemical Engineers.
Chemical Technology, 3, 338–344. Mahoney, D. G. (1990). Large property damage losses in the hydro-
Khan, F.I., & Abbasi, S.A. (1997). Risk analysis of epichlohydrin carbon-chemical industries: a thirty-year review (13th ed.). New
manufacturing industry using new computer automated tool York: M&M Protection Consultants.
MAXCRED. Journal of Loss Prevention in Process Industries, Marshall, V.C. (1977). What are major hazards? Safety Surveyor,
10(2), 91–100. 5(3), 5.
Kharbanda, O. P., & Stallworthy, E. E. (1988). Safety in chemical Marshall, V. C. (1987). Major chemical hazards. Chichester: Ellis Hor-
industry—lessons from major disasters. London: Heinemann Pro- wood.
fessional Publishing Ltd. Nash, J. R. (1976). Darkest hours. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Kletz, T.A. (1991a). The Philips explosion—this is where I came in. Norstrom, G.P. (1982). Fire/explosion losses in the CPI. Chem. Eng.
Chemical Eng., 493, 47–53. Prog., 78(8), 80.
Kletz, T.A. (1991b). Process safety—an engineering achievement. Palmer, K.N. (1983). Explosions in flammable smokes from smoulder-
Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 205, 11–23. ing fires. Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion, 4(3), D11.
Prugh, R.W. (1991). Quantitative evaluation of BLEVE hazards. Jour-
Kletz, T.A. (1988). Piper Alpha: latest chapter in a long history. The
nal of Fire Protection Engineering, 3(1), 9–21.
Chemical Engineer, 4(July), 277.
Raghavan, K. V., & Swaminathan, G. (1996). Hazard Assessment and
Kletz, T. A., (1989). What went wrong. London: Gulf.
Disaster Mitigation in Petrochemical Industries. Chennai: Oxford
Koivisto, R., Vaija, P., & Dohnal, M. (1989). Intelligent interface of
Publishing Company.
accident databases. Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion, 6, 98.1.
Suchman, E.A. (1961). A conceptual analysis of the accident problem.
Koivisto, R., & Nielsen, D. (1994). FIRE—a database on chemical
Social Problems, 8(3), 241–246.
warehouse fires. Journal of Loss Prevention in Process Industries, Taylor, J.R. (1993). Use of simulation for emergency planning and
7, 209. training. Health, Safety and Loss Prevention, 387, 114–119.
Lees, F.P. (1980). Accident fatality number—a supplementary risk cri- The Hindu (1997). Major fire in Vizag refinery. The Hindu, 15 Sep-
terion. Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion, 3(2), 426. tember, p. 1.
Lees, F.P. (1994). Major accident inquiries—lawyers or engineers? The Hindu (1997a). Blast in a factory. The Hindu, 25 November, p. 11.
Process Safety Environ., 72B, 10. The Hindu (1997b). Blast in sterlite claims two lives. The Hindu, 31
Lees, F. P., (1996). Loss prevention in chemical process industries. August, p. 15.
London: Butterworth. Thomas, I.F. (1995). The politics of safety. Chemical Eng. of Aus-
Lees, F. P., & Ang, M. L. (1984). Safety cases in control of industrial tralia, 20(1), 14–21.
major accident hazards (CIMAH —regulation 1984). London: But- TPL (1992). Risk analysis of storage unit of chemical process industry.
terworth. Manali, Madras, India: Tamilnadu Petrochemical Ltd.
Lewis, D. J. (1984). Case histories of past accidents, the causes and Wells, G.L., Phang, C., Wardman, M., & Whetton, C. (1992). Incident
consequences. In J. I. Petts, Major hazard installation: Planning scenarios: their identification and evaluation. Process Safety
and assessment. Loughborough University of Technology, UK. Environ, 70B, 179.