Anda di halaman 1dari 9
Available online at www.sciencedirecticom Soural of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 19 (2006) 51-89 worwaleviorcomfocateip A study of storage tank accidents James I. Chang***, Cheng-Chung Lin” “Deparment of safety, Health and Emsironmentat Engineering, Notional Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC “Chang-Cheng Storage Staion, Chinese Petroleum Corporation, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC Received 5 December 2004; receive in revised form 19 May 2005; cepted 26 May 2005, Abstract “This paper reviews 242 accidents of storage tanks tha occurred in industrial fciliies over last 40 years. Fishbone Diagram is applied to analyze the causes that lead to accidents. Corretive actions ae also provided to help operating engineers handling similar situations in the fuze, Te results show that 74% of accidents occurred in petroleum refineries, ol terminals or storage. Fire and explosion account for 85% ofthe accidents, There were 80 accidents (33%) caused by lightning and 72 (30%) caused by human errors including poor operations and ‘maintenance, Other causes were equipment failure, sabotage, crack and rupture, leak and lie rupture, static electricity, open flames ete. Most of those accidents would have been avoided if good engineering have been practiced. © 2005 Elsevier Lid. All sights reserved. Kepwonds: Fishbone Diagram; Acident statistics, Gre and explosion 1. Introduction Storage tanks in refineries and chemical plants contain Jarge volumes of flammable and hazardous chemicals. A small accident may lead to million-dollar property toss and a few days of production interruption. A large accident resulis in lawsuits, stock devaluation, or company bank- rupicy. In last 50 years, trade organizations and engincer- ing societies such as American petroleum institute (APD, American institute of chemical engineers (AIChE), ‘American society of mechanical engineers (ASME), and national fre protection association (NFPA) have published strict engineering guidelines and standards for the construction, material selection, design and safe manage- rent of storage tanks and their acessories (AICHE, 1988 1993; API, 1988; 1990; ASME, 2004; NFPA, 1992; UL, 1986; 1987). Most companies follow those standards and ‘uidelines in the design, construction and operation, but ing from the past history is definitely important for the future safe operation of storage tanks. * Conesponing author. Tels +886 916143783; fox: +886 7 6011061 Email addres: envjaes®@cemsakfos.du.w (LL. Chang) (0950-12308 se frm maner © 2005 Ekever Lid. Al ighis reserved. 410.1016} 1p 200805 015 ‘The purpose of this paper is to categorize the causes that Jead to 242 tank accidents occurred in last 40 years. The fishbone diagram (The cause and effect diagram) invented by Dr Kaoru Ishikawa (Ishikawa and Lu, 1985) is used to summarize the effects and the causes that create or ‘contribute to those effects. We hope that this work will be beneficial to tank operators and engineers. 2. Overall statistics ‘The information of 242 tank accidents reviewed in this work was collected from published reports (March and Mclennan, 1990; 1997; 2002; Persson and Lonnermark, 2004), books (CPC, 1983; 2002; Pekalski, 1997; Lees, 1996), CSB incident news (USCSB, 2000-2003) and databases (UQ, 2001; USCHSIB, 2004; ICHemE, 2002; PAJ, 2004; USNOAO, 1999). There were 114 occurred in North America, 72 in Asia and 38 in Europe (Table 1). USA. had 105 accidents reviewed because of the easy accessibility to accident information. As indicated in Table 2, accidents cccurred more frequently at petroleum refineries with 116 ceases (47.9%). The second most frequently involved place was terminals and pumping stations (64 cases, 26.4%). Only 25.7% of accidents occurred in petrochemical plants (12.8%), oil fields (2.5%), and other types of industrial facilities (10.3%) such as power plants, gas plants, pipelines, fertilizer plants, 2 J Chang. C-C, Lin Journal of Lass Prevention inthe Process Industries 19 (2006) 1-59 Tobe 1 Continents where acidens occured Yeu ‘Noth Ameries” Asia and Ausrata” Europe" ‘South America Tol 1960-1965 3 7 6 7 7 190-1979 8 9 6 1 36 1980-1989 26 9 9 3 3 1990-1999 36 3 2 2 85 2000-2003, 31 6 3 ° 51 Toul ne n 8 9 202 * South Aiea. 105, Mexico:6, Canada’. «Taian: 19, Japur0, China. + UK Ilys. Tatte2 ‘Type of complex where acidems occured Yer Refinery ‘TemminalSorge Chemical ant Oi Fed Mise ‘ovat 1990-1969 10 5 7 ° T 7 19701979 2 0 ° ° 3 6 1980-1989 5 0 3 2 ‘ 3 1950-1859 a 2 6 1 3 8s 2000-2003 8 9 9 3 2 3 Subeoul 6 “ 31 6 8 ma * Pewoshemica plans included. ® ther indus fies such as power, ga, pipeline, fries, and plating plans. Tae “Type of tank contents Yer ‘Gude Oil Gasoline Peso. LPG? Wasteoil Ammonia ‘Hydrochloric Caustic Molten Tot il —__products*™_(Naphtha chemicals water acid soda sulfur I-19 6 3 ° 3 es ° 7 0198 7 3 3 ae 0 36 lois 7 eT 4 fo 0 3 ois n se ° 1 1 a 20203 16 6 6 1 1 3 2 3 1 31 Stoo 69ST Seo) 3 3 3 2 2 * Fuel ll, se, Kerosene, Ibrcans. * Propane and butane included. te. Crude oil, gasoline and il products suchas fuel. \ype. Both types were used extensively forthe storage of crude ‘etc. were major contents (Table 3). The atmospheric external oil, gasoline, and diesel oil (Table 4). floating roof tank was the most frequent type and the Fire was the most frequent type of loss with 145 cases ‘atmospheric cone top tank was the second most frequent and explosion was the second most frequent type of loss Tales “Type of tanks and contents Content Exemal Cone ‘Sphere Cone oofineral Refigerted Wooden Fiber Teal Soating top top Aoating top ask ‘op as Gate oF B 3 ° 2 ° 2 ° 2 Ol products 3 0 ° 1 ° ° ° “4 Gaoline » 3 ° 3 ° ° ° 26 LG 0 ° " ° ° ° ° " Propane o ° ° ° 1 ° 1 2 Hydrctioge acid 0 ° ° ° o ° 2 2 Menylcyamaie 0 0 ° ° 1 ° ° 1 ‘Seoul “6 8 n 6 2 ° 3 8 14, Chang, C-C. Lin Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 19 (2006) 1-59 3 Table ‘Type of accidents Yer Fie Explosion Spi “Toni gas Release Mise ‘Seti 1960-1969 3 ® ° ° ° 7 1970-1979 6 5 s ° 36 1980-1989 3 6 3 2 © 3 1990-1999 2 2 2 1 ® 85 2000-2003, 2 10 s 0 z 31 Subtotal us 6 18 B 3 2 * Tank ody astoron. » esol fall 1 Person fll and 1 person was electrified to death, with 61 cases as indicated in Table 5. Fire and explosion together accounted for 85% of total cases. Oil spill and toxic gasfiquid release were the third and the fourth most frequent, respectively. The tank body distortion and the worker's falling only occurred a few times. Property losses were rarely reported and the information was difficult to find, The average property loss of the 10 largest storage tank damage losses listed in Table 6 is 114 million in January most frequent cause, The rest were operational error, ‘equipment failure, sabotage, crack and rupture, leak and line rupture, static electricity, open flames etc. To illustrate causes and effects, a fishbone diagram as shown in Fig, 1 ‘was developed. A fishbone diagram as shown in Fig. 2 was also developed for the prevention of accidents. 2002 dollars. 3, Causes of accidents {As indicated in Table 7, lightning was the most frequent cause of accident and the maintenance error was the second 3.1. Lightning ‘There are two major causes of lightning related fires. The first one is a direct strike and the second is the secondary effects such asthe bound charge, the electromagnetic pulse, the electrostatic pulse and the earth currents (Carpenter, 1996). A direct lightning strike zone has a radius between 10 ‘and 10 m, When a storage tank is inthe direct strike zone, Desription ‘Spars from a flame coting torch ignited fuel from stank sil in a dike of «fel nk. “The fire spread to ober areas resulting in destrucion of 10 ou of 12 ert ol tanks. 'A260,000 bare tank containing 236,000 bares of refrigerated propane at-4S°F failure ‘massively. An adjoining refgerated butane tank and most ofthe process area wee also destroyed by fre. Frothing ocured when hot il and water emulsion ina slp tank reacted with volatile ‘Slop, casing s violent vapor release an boil-ove. The fre destroyed 3 hydrocsb, 8 soli pla, and 80 storage tanks. [Neal simultaneous explosions aboard s 7,000 DWT tanker off-loading and in an 80,000-bame chanel ata refinery occured uring a electric storm. ‘An unidentified fll led to the release of light hydrocarbons which spread 1 an ignition source. 11 tanks inthis alkylation unit were desoyed. Fire destroyed 8 tanks and damaged several others. The cause of the fie has not been Gisclosed. [LPG ignited uring tank loading from ashi, A tick blanket of smoke spreading panic amon the residents ele i 37 people ied and 100 injured. 15 storage tanks bumed oe oo days. “Twenty fur ofthe 32 tanks a a marin pewoleum products terminal destroyed by fre that began witha tnk ovefil. Explosion caused complete destruction ofthe terminal ‘lings nd neaby industrial and reside situs. ‘A covering ofa foatng roof tank spied 1300 bares of gasoline into the tank ks. “The vapor clod carried by wind to a nearby incinerator and was ignited. The resling ‘explosion destroyed two adjacent tanks and the tenmial. ‘Alow pressure NOL feed drum ruptured ina crde ol sation, resulting infire damage ‘one third ofthe module and exterior of surrounding srctore within 100. Tobie “Ten largest tank accidents berween 1963 and 2002 item Due ‘Lezation| Lost 7 DRAG ‘Teessioniki «330 Greece” 2 4am! UMM sid. Qaar 179 3 106 —Pemis Nether 141 lands 4 Sn eee Pak, Texas, 138 USA 5 snore Texas Ciy 120 ‘Texas, USA 6 snont Kuwait B 7 ones7 —Vishabhspstnam, 64 India 8 waains' —Neplesstaly ° wimy Newark, New 52 jersey, USA, 0 ‘snes’ Prods, Bay, 47 Alasta, USA ae ne * tn milion Janwary 2002 US dolls he lus quoted in Fewnrel and Hirst (1998) was converted into 2002 US dolar.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai