Domino effect accident

Last updated

A domino effect accident is an accident in which a primary undesired event sequentially or simultaneously triggers one or more secondary undesired events in nearby equipment or facilities, leading to secondary accidents more severe than the primary event. [1] Thus, a domino effect accident is actually a chain of multiple events, which can be likened to a falling row of dominoes. The term knock-on accident is also used. [2]

Contents

Domino effect accidents are an important process safety issue affecting process plants where significant amounts of hazardous materials are stored, transported, and processed. Losses of containment that result in fires or explosions can escalate to nearby equipment, due to thermal radiation, blast overpressure or other mechanisms, thus potentially causing further fires, explosions, or toxic gas clouds. [3]

The aftermath of a domino effect on storage tanks, 2009 Catano oil refinery fire Burned gas tanks from the refinery explosion in Puerto Rico.jpg
The aftermath of a domino effect on storage tanks, 2009 Cataño oil refinery fire

Characteristics of domino effect accidents

The consequences of the domino effects of an accident are often more severe than the primary event. Escalation is caused by the physical effects induced by the primary event, which are referred to as escalation vectors. Domino effect accidents mainly consist of three elements: the primary scenario, the escalation vectors, and one or more secondary accidents. [4]

Primary scenarios

The primary scenarios include various types of fire (flash fire, pool fire, jet fire, fireball, boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE), unconfined vapor cloud explosion (UVCE), confined explosion (CE), and mechanical explosion (ME). [4] Normally, there is only one primary event, such as a tank fire in a gasoline storage farm. However, if the process is triggered by intentional attacks or natural disasters, multi-primary events may apply. In that case, it can be very difficult to prevent the escalation of domino effects due to the synergistic effects caused by multiple hazardous events. [5] For example, an earthquake may lead to multiple equipment failures in a process plant, which can in turn cause further accidents. [6]

Escalation vectors

The escalation vectors are the hazardous effects caused by the primary scenarios. The escalation vectors of pool fires, jet fires, and fireballs is thermal radiation and fire impingement. For BLEVE, ME, and VCE it is blast overpressure and fragment projection. [7] Fire-induced domino effects are time-dependent (because the affected equipment has a certain time-to-failure), while explosion-induced domino effects are not related to time, as the failure of the affected equipment will occur instantaneously. [8] [9]

Single and multiple secondary accidents

If the primary scenario successfully escalates to other installations nearby, one or more secondary events occur. [10] Escalation from the primary event to the secondary event is called the first-level escalation, while escalation from secondary event to a potential tertiary event is called second-level escalation, and so on. When lower-level event triggers multiple higher-level events, these are called parallel effects. A higher-level event caused by multiple lower-level events is a case of synergistic effects. Time-dependent escalation vectors from different sources and acting at different times may result in a synergic effect over a secondary target; this is called superimposed effects. [11]

Types

Intentional and unintentional domino effect accidents

According to whether the primary event is deliberate or not, domino effect accidents can be divided into unintentional and intentional. The primary events of unintentional domino effects are caused by accidental events (e.g., corrosion, human errors, and leakage) or natural hazards (e.g., earthquake, lightning, floods). Intentional domino effects are cause by deliberate attacks such as acts of terrorism and sabotage. [12]

Fire-induced and explosion-induced domino effect accidents

According to the physical nature of the primary event, domino effects can be divided into fire-induced [13] and explosion-induced. [14] [15] According to some sources, toxic release may also directly induce domino effects via the movement of toxic gases, e.g., if poisoning induces plant operators to errors that result in secondary accidents. [16]

Internal and external domino effect accidents

In a chemical cluster or a process plant industrial park, there are multiple hazardous materials sites located next to each other. An accident occurring in a site may escalate to the neighboring plants. Internal domino effect accidents are those accidents that occur within a plant, while external ones are those escalating to outside the primary plant boundaries. [17] Preventing external domino effect accidents is especially complex, as these require managing the hazard across multiple companies. Encouraging the cooperation between different neighboring companies within a cluster of sites is essential for the management of domino effect hazards. [18]

Fire raging at Catano refinery 2009 Catano refinery explosion.jpg
Fire raging at Cataño refinery

Examples

The consequences of domino effect accidents can be much more severe than the primary events. Past process industry catastrophes that involved domino effects significantly greater than the initiating event are the San Juanico disaster, the Piper Alpha disaster, the Esso Longford disaster of 1998, the 2005 Buncefield fire, the 2009 Jaipur fire, the 2009 Cataño oil refinery fire, the 2019 Xiangshui chemical plant explosion, etc. For example, at the 2019 Xiangshui chemical plant explosion, which led to more than 78 deaths and 617 injuries, many facilities near the chemical plant where the accident started were damaged. [15]

Buncefield fire seen from the M1 motorway Buncefield explosion from M1 motorway.jpg
Buncefield fire seen from the M1 motorway

Prevention and mitigation measures

Management of domino effects hazards focuses on one or more of three aspects: reduction of the likelihood of occurrence of the primary event; preventing the escalation of the primary event; mitigating the escalation of the primary event. The engineered and administrative safety barriers used in this context can be active, passive, or procedural and emergency measures. [19]

Active protection measures

Active protection measures are those needing power and/or external activation to trigger their protection action. They can be used to suppress fire, such as water/foam deluge, and isolate process units, such as emergency shutdown (ESD) systems. [20] An active protection measure usually consists of three elements: (i) a detection system, (ii) a treatment system, and (iii) an actuation system. In order to ensure the performance of active protection measures, all the above three elements should be effective. [19]

Passive protection measures

No external activation is needed for passive protection measures. As a result, passive protection measures are generally more reliable than active ones. Fireproofing is a commonly-used passive protection measure used to insulate pressure vessels from heat radiation induced by external fire. Passive fire protection increases the time-to-failure of vessels, providing more time for emergency response actions to extinguish the fire. Pressure relief valves are another example of passive protection measure. [20]

Procedural and emergency measures

Procedures are administrative barriers for escalation prevention. Emergency measures are also administrative in nature and focus on emergency response, both within the primary site and the surrounding ones. Emergency response procedures in process plants play an important role in protecting employees, installations, and other civilians nearby. In terms of domino effects, an emergency response such as firefighting can effectively prevent the escalation of accidents by reducing heat radiation and isolating undamaged vessels. [13] Emergency response actions require a certain time to be initiated, and emergency resources are typically limited; optimizing emergency procedures and emergency resource allocation is essential for the prevention and mitigation of domino effects. [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Domino effect</span> Cumulative effect produced when one event sets off a chain of other events

A domino effect is the cumulative effect produced when one event sets off a series of similar or related events, a form of chain reaction. The term is an analogy to a falling row of dominoes. It typically refers to a linked sequence of events where the time between successive events is relatively short. The term can be used literally or metaphorically.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flixborough disaster</span> Industrial accident in North Lincolnshire, England (1974)

The Flixborough disaster was an explosion at a chemical plant close to the village of Flixborough, North Lincolnshire, England, on 1 June 1974. It killed 28 and seriously injured 36 of the 72 people on site at the time. The casualty figures could have been much higher if the explosion had occurred on a weekday, when the main office area would have been occupied. A contemporary campaigner on process safety wrote "the shock waves rattled the confidence of every chemical engineer in the country".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion</span> Explosion of a vessel containing liquid above and beyond boiling point

A boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion is an explosion caused by the rupture of a vessel containing a pressurized liquid that is or has reached a temperature sufficiently higher than its boiling point. Because the boiling point of a liquid rises with pressure, the contents of the pressurized vessel can remain a liquid as long as the vessel is intact. If the vessel's integrity is compromised, the loss of pressure drops the boiling point, which can cause the liquid to convert to gas expanding rapidly. BLEVEs are manifestations of explosive boiling.

Process Safety Managementof Highly Hazardous Chemicals is a regulation promulgated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). It defines and regulates a process safety management (PSM) program for plants using, storing, manufacturing, handling or carrying out on-site movement of hazardous materials above defined amount thresholds. Companies affected by the regulation usually build a compliant process safety management system and integrate it in their safety management system. Non-U.S. companies frequently choose on a voluntary basis to use the OSHA scheme in their business.

A chemical accident is the unintentional release of one or more hazardous chemicals, which could harm human health and the environment. Such events include fires, explosions, and release of toxic materials that may cause people illness, injury, or disability. Chemical accidents can be caused for example by natural disasters, human error, or deliberate acts for personal gain. Chemical accidents are generally understood to be industrial-scale ones, often with important offsite consequences. Unintended exposure to chemicals that occur at smaller work sites, as well as in private premises during everyday activities are usually not referred to as chemical accidents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Texas City refinery explosion</span> 2005 deadly refinery accident

The Texas City refinery explosion occurred on March 23, 2005, when a flammable hydrocarbon vapor cloud ignited and violently exploded at the isomerization process unit of the BP oil refinery in Texas City, Texas, killing 15 workers, injuring 180 others and severely damaging the refinery. All the fatalities were contractors working out of temporary buildings located close to the unit to support turnaround activities. Property loss was $200 million. When including costs of repairs, deferred production, fines, and settlements, the explosion is the world's costliest refinery accident.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thermal runaway</span> Loss of control of an exothermal process due to temperature increases

Thermal runaway describes a process that is accelerated by increased temperature, in turn releasing energy that further increases temperature. Thermal runaway occurs in situations where an increase in temperature changes the conditions in a way that causes a further increase in temperature, often leading to a destructive result. It is a kind of uncontrolled positive feedback.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1998 Esso Longford fire</span> 1998 industrial disaster in Victoria, Australia

On 25 September 1998 a catastrophic accident occurred at the Esso natural gas plant in Longford, Victoria, Australia. A pressure vessel ruptured resulting in a serious jet fire, which escalated to a conflagration extending to a large part of the plant. Fires lasted two days before they were finally extinguished.

In the chemical and process industries, a process has inherent safety if it has a low level of danger even if things go wrong. Inherent safety contrasts with other processes where a high degree of hazard is controlled by protective systems. As perfect safety cannot be achieved, common practice is to talk about inherently safer design. “An inherently safer design is one that avoids hazards instead of controlling them, particularly by reducing the amount of hazardous material and the number of hazardous operations in the plant.”

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Explosives safety</span>

Explosives safety originated as a formal program in the United States in the aftermath of World War I when several ammunition storage areas were destroyed in a series of mishaps. The most serious occurred at Picatinny Arsenal Ammunition Storage Depot, New Jersey, in July, 1926 when an electrical storm led to fires that caused explosions and widespread destruction. The severe property damage and 19 fatalities led Congress to empower a board of Army and Naval officers to investigate the Picatinny Arsenal disaster and determine if similar conditions existed at other ammunition depots. The board reported in its findings that this mishap could recur, prompting Congress to establish a permanent board of colonels to develop explosives safety standards and ensure compliance beginning in 1928. This organization evolved into the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) and is chartered in Title 10 of the US Code. The DDESB authors Defense Explosives Safety Regulation (DESR) 6055.9 which establishes the explosives safety standards for the Department of Defense. The DDESB also evaluates scientific data which may adjust those standards, reviews and approves all explosives site plans for new construction, and conducts worldwide visits to locations containing US title munitions. The cardinal principle of explosives safety is expose the minimum number of people for the minimum time to the minimum amount of explosives.

A blowdown stack is an elevated vent or vertical stack that is used to vent the pressure of components of a chemical, refinery or other plant if there is a process problem or emergency. A blowdown stack can be used to complement a flare stack or as an alternative. The purpose is to prevent 'loss of containment' of volatile liquids and gases. Blowdown from several systems may be combined in a blowdown header prior to the stack. A knock-out pot may be provided at the base of the stack to remove any liquids. Blowdown stacks may either be ignited or un-ignited. The height of the blowdown stack must be tall enough to ensure the safe dispersal of vapour.

Process safety is an interdisciplinary engineering domain focusing on the study, prevention, and management of large-scale fires, explosions and chemical accidents in process plants or other facilities dealing with hazardous materials, such as refineries and oil and gas production installations. Thus, process safety is generally concerned with the prevention of, control of, mitigation of and recovery from unintentional hazardous materials releases that can have a serious effect to people, plant and/or the environment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tokaimura nuclear accidents</span> 1997 and 1999 Tōkai nuclear plant events

The Tokaimura nuclear accidents refer to two nuclear related incidents near the village of Tōkai, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. The first accident occurred on 11 March 1997, producing an explosion after an experimental batch of solidified nuclear waste caught fire at the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC) radioactive waste bituminisation facility. Over twenty people were exposed to radiation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">San Juanico disaster</span> 1984 industrial accident near Mexico City, Mexico

The San Juanico disaster involved a series of fires and explosions at a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) tank farm in the settlement of San Juan Ixhuatepec, municipality of Tlalnepantla de Baz, State of Mexico, Mexico on 19 November 1984. The facility and the settlement, part of Greater Mexico City, were devastated, with 500–600 victims killed, and 5000–7000 suffering severe burns. It is one of the deadliest industrial disasters in world history, and the deadliest industrial accident involving fires and/or explosions from hazardous materials in a process or storage plant since the Oppau explosion in 1921.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hazard</span> Situation or object that can cause damage

A hazard is a potential source of harm. Substances, events, or circumstances can constitute hazards when their nature would allow them, even just theoretically, to cause damage to health, life, property, or any other interest of value. The probability of that harm being realized in a specific incident, combined with the magnitude of potential harm, make up its risk, a term often used synonymously in colloquial speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thiamethoxam</span> Chemical compound

Thiamethoxam is the ISO common name for a mixture of cis-trans isomers used as a systemic insecticide of the neonicotinoid class. It has a broad spectrum of activity against many types of insects and can be used as a seed dressing.

Chemical safety includes all those policies, procedures and practices designed to minimize the risk of exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals. This includes the risks of exposure to persons handling the chemicals, to the surrounding environment, and to the communities and ecosystems within that environment. Manufactured chemicals, either pure or in mixtures, solutions and emulsions, are ubiquitous in modern society, at industrial, occupational and private scale. However, there are chemicals that should not mix or get in contact with others, as they can produce byproducts that may be toxic, carcinogenic, explosive etc., or can be dangerous in themselves. To avoid disasters and mishaps, maintaining safety is paramount.

The health and safety hazards of nanomaterials include the potential toxicity of various types of nanomaterials, as well as fire and dust explosion hazards. Because nanotechnology is a recent development, the health and safety effects of exposures to nanomaterials, and what levels of exposure may be acceptable, are subjects of ongoing research. Of the possible hazards, inhalation exposure appears to present the most concern, with animal studies showing pulmonary effects such as inflammation, fibrosis, and carcinogenicity for some nanomaterials. Skin contact and ingestion exposure, and dust explosion hazards, are also a concern.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear emergency level classification responses</span>

Nuclear power plants pose high risk if chemicals are exposed to those in surrounding communities and areas. This nuclear emergency level classificationresponse system was firstly developed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow effective and urgent responses to ultimately control and minimise any detrimental effects that nuclear chemicals can have. These classifications come in four different categories – Unusual Event, Alert, Site Area Emergency (SAE), as well as General Emergency. Thus, each classification has differing characteristics and purposes, depending on the situation at hand. Every nuclear power plant has a different emergency response action plan, also depending on its structure, location and nature. They were developed by thorough discussion and planning with numerous authoritative parties such as local, state, federal agencies as well as other private and non-profit groups that are in association with emergency services. Today, nuclear emergency plans are continuously being developed over time to be improved for future serious events to keep communities and nuclear power plant working members safe. There is a high emphasis for the need of these emergency responses in case of future events. Thus, nuclear plants can, and have paid up to approximately $78 million to ensure that are required measurements are readily available, and that equipment is sufficient and safe. This is applicable for all nuclear power plants in the United States of America.

References

  1. Reniers, Genserik; Cozzani, Valerio (2013). Domino Effects in the Process Industries (1st ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 35. ISBN   978-0-444-54323-3.
  2. Reniers, G.L.L.; Dullaert, W. (2008). "Knock-on Accident Prevention in a Chemical Cluster". Expert Systems with Applications . 34 (1): 42–49. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2006.08.033.
  3. Khakzad, Nima (2015). "Application of Dynamic Bayesian Network to Risk Analysis of Domino Effects in Chemical Infrastructures". Reliability Engineering & System Safety . 138: 263–272. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2015.02.007.
  4. 1 2 Cozzani, V.; Gubinelli, G.; Antonioni, G.; Spadoni, G.; Zanelli, S. (2005). "The Assessment of Risk Caused by Domino Effect in Quantitative Area Risk Analysis". Journal of Hazardous Materials . 127 (1–3): 14–30. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.003. PMID   16102897.
  5. Khakzad, Nima; Reniers, Genserik (2019). "Low-capacity Utilization of Process Plants: A Cost-robust Approach to Tackle Man-made Domino Effects" (PDF). Reliability Engineering & System Safety . 191: 106114. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2018.03.030 . Retrieved 2023-07-17.
  6. Huang, Kongxing; Chen, Guohua; Yang, Yunfeng; Chen, Peizhu (August 2020). "An innovative quantitative analysis methodology for Natech events triggered by earthquakes in chemical tank farms". Safety Science. 128: 104744. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104744.
  7. Alileche, Nassim; Cozzani, Valerio; Reniers, Genserik; Estel, Lionel (2015). "Thresholds for Domino Effects and Safety Distances in the Process Industry: A Review of Approaches and Regulations". Reliability Engineering & System Safety . 143: 74–84. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2015.04.007. hdl: 10067/1273360151162165141 .
  8. Landucci, Gabriele; Gubinelli, Gianfilippo; Antonioni, Giacomo; Cozzani, Valerio (2009). "The Assessment of the Damage Probability of Storage Tanks in Domino Events Triggered by Fire". Accident Analysis & Prevention . 41 (6): 1206–1215. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2008.05.006. PMID   19819369.
  9. Cozzani, Valerio; Salzano, Ernesto (March 2004). "The quantitative assessment of domino effects caused by overpressure". Journal of Hazardous Materials. 107 (3): 67–80. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2003.09.013. PMID   15072815.
  10. Zhang, Laobing; Landucci, Gabriele; Reniers, Genserik; Khakzad, Nima; Zhou, Jianfeng (August 2018). "DAMS: A Model to Assess Domino Effects by Using Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation". Risk Analysis. 38 (8): 1585–1600. Bibcode:2018RiskA..38.1585Z. doi:10.1111/risa.12955. hdl: 10067/1529210151162165141 . PMID   29266430.
  11. Chen, Chao; Reniers, Genserik; Zhang, Laobing (July 2018). "An innovative methodology for quickly modeling the spatial-temporal evolution of domino accidents triggered by fire". Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 54: 312–324. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2018.04.012. hdl: 10067/1514120151162165141 .
  12. Chen, Chao; Reniers, Genserik; Khakzad, Nima (February 2020). "Cost-benefit management of intentional domino effects in chemical industrial areas". Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 134: 392–405. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2019.10.007. hdl: 10067/1660990151162165141 .
  13. 1 2 Zhou, Jianfeng; Reniers, Genserik; Khakzad, Nima (June 2016). "Application of event sequence diagram to evaluate emergency response actions during fire-induced domino effects". Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 150: 202–209. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2016.02.005. hdl: 10067/1319140151162165141 .
  14. Salzano, Ernesto; Cozzani, Valerio (November 2005). "The analysis of domino accidents triggered by vapor cloud explosions". Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 90 (2–3): 271–284. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.012.
  15. 1 2 3 Chen, Chao; Reniers, Genserik; Khakzad, Nima (May 2020). "A thorough classification and discussion of approaches for modeling and managing domino effects in the process industries". Safety Science. 125: 104618. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104618 .
  16. Khan, Faisal I.; Abbasi, S. A. (June 2004). "Models for domino effect analysis in chemical process industries". Process Safety Progress. 17 (2): 107–123. doi:10.1002/prs.680170207.
  17. Reniers, Genserik (May 2010). "An external domino effects investment approach to improve cross-plant safety within chemical clusters". Journal of Hazardous Materials. 177 (1–3): 167–174. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.12.013. PMID   20044206.
  18. Pavlova, Yulia; Reniers, Genserik (February 2011). "A sequential-move game for enhancing safety and security cooperation within chemical clusters". Journal of Hazardous Materials. 186 (1): 401–406. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.11.013. PMID   21146296.
  19. 1 2 Landucci, Gabriele; Argenti, Francesca; Tugnoli, Alessandro; Cozzani, Valerio (November 2015). "Quantitative assessment of safety barrier performance in the prevention of domino scenarios triggered by fire". Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 143: 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.023.
  20. 1 2 Khakzad, Nima; Landucci, Gabriele; Reniers, Genserik (November 2017). "Application of dynamic Bayesian network to performance assessment of fire protection systems during domino effects". Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 167: 232–247. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2017.06.004.