Natural Hazards

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 285–300 | Cite as

Industrial accidents triggered by earthquakes, floods and lightning: lessons learned from a database analysis

  • Elisabeth Krausmann
  • Elisabetta Renni
  • Michela Campedel
  • Valerio Cozzani
Original Paper


Natural hazards and disasters can cause major accidents in chemical and process installations. These so-called Natech accidents can result in hazardous-materials releases due to damage to process and storage units, or pipes. In order to understand the dynamics of Natech events, accidents triggered by earthquakes, floods and lightning recorded in industrial accident databases were analysed. This allowed the identification of the most vulnerable equipment types, their modes of failure due to natural-event impact and the final accident scenarios. Moreover, lessons learned for future accident prevention and mitigation were derived. The analysis showed that pipes and storage tanks are the most vulnerable equipment for earthquakes, floods and lightning, calling for more research of equipment behaviour under natural-event loading. The damage modes and states are strongly dependent on the characteristics of the impacting natural event. Toxic dispersion, fires and explosions were observed as a consequence of all three types of analysed natural events. In the case of floods, two additional scenarios were identified. These are water contamination and the formation of toxic and/or flammable vapours upon reaction of the released chemicals with the floodwaters. The overall number of recorded Natech accidents was found to range from 2 to 5% of all reported accidents in the analysed databases.


Earthquake Flood Lightning Natech accident Industrial risk Lessons learned 


  1. American Petroleum Institute (2008) API RP 2003 protection against ignitions arising out of static, lightning, and stray currents, 7th ednGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonioni G, Bonvicini S, Spadoni G, Cozzani V (2009) Development of a framework for the risk assessment of Natech accidental events. Reliab Eng Sys Saf 94:1442–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ARIA (2006) Analyse, Recherche, et Information sur les Accidents. French ministry of ecology and sustainable development, bureau for analysis of industrial risk and pollution. Accessed 2006
  4. Ballantyne D, Crouse C (1997) Reliability and restoration of water supply systems for fire suppression and drinking following earthquakes. National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST GCR 97-720Google Scholar
  5. Campedel M (2006) Metodologie di identificazione e valutazione di incidenti rilevanti causati da eventi naturali in impianti industriali. Master Thesis, University of Bologna, Department of Chemical EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  6. Campedel M, Cozzani V, Krausmann E, Cruz AM (2008a) Analysis of Natech accidents recorded in major accident databases. 9th international conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management (PSAM9), Hong Kong, China, 18–23 May 2008Google Scholar
  7. Campedel M, Cozzani V, Garcia-Agreda A, Salzano E (2008b) Extending the quantitative assessment of industrial risks to earthquake effects. Risk Anal 28(5):1231–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter PA (2004) Proactive lightning protection concepts. Dynamic Positioning Conference, Houston, USA, 28–30 SeptGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang JI, Lin C-C (2006) A study of storage tank accidents. J Loss Prev Proc Ind 19:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cozzani V, Campedel M, Renni E, Krausmann E (2010) Industrial accidents triggered by flood events: analysis of past accidents. J Hazard Mat 175:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cruz AM, Krausmann E (2008) Damage to offshore oil and gas facilities following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: an overview. J Loss Prev Proc Ind 21:620–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cruz AM, Krausmann E (2009) Hazardous-materials releases from offshore oil and gas facilities and emergency response following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. J Loss Prev Proc Ind 22:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cruz AM, Krausmann E, Franchello G (2010) Analysis of tsunami impact scenarios at an oil refinery. Nat Hazard. doi:10.1007/s11069-010-9655-x
  14. Davis DW (2006) Oil spills and other issues in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: an overview. 29th Arctic and Marine Oil spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, Canada, 6–8 June 2006Google Scholar
  15. Delvosalle C, Fievez C, Pipart A, Debray B (2006) ARAMIS project: a comprehensive methodology for the identification of reference accident scenarios in process industries. J Hazard Mat 130:200–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2010) Natech accident database. Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Italy. Cited 12 Feb 2010
  17. Fabbrocino G, Iervolino I, Orlando F, Salzano E (2005) Quantitative risk analysis of oil storage facilities in seismic areas. J Hazard Mat A123:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FACTS (2006) Failure and Accidents Technical Information System. TNO Built Environment and Geosciences, The Netherlands. Accessed 2006
  19. Farzad N, Anderson J (1993) Classification and evaluation of earthquake records for design. University of Southern California Report CE93-08, July 1993Google Scholar
  20. Gautam KP, van der Hoek EE (2003) Literature study on environmental impact of floods. Delft Cluster Publication DC1-233-13, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  21. Goethals M, Borgonjon I, Wood M (eds) (2008) Necessary measures for preventing major accidents at petroleum storage depots–Key points and conclusions. Seveso Inspections Series, vol 1, European Communities Report EUR 22804 ENGoogle Scholar
  22. Industrial Fire World (2006) Lightning protection? Floating roof tank shunts, vol 21, No 6, Nov/Dec 2006Google Scholar
  23. Krausmann E (2010) Analysis of Natech risk reduction in EU Member States using a questionnaire survey. Report EUR 24661 EN, 2010Google Scholar
  24. Krausmann E, Baranzini D (2009) Natech risk reduction in OECD Member Countries: results of a questionnaire survey. Report JRC 54120, European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  25. Krausmann E, Cruz AM (eds) (2008) Natech disasters: when natural hazards trigger technological accidents. Special Issue Nat Hazard 46(2):139–263Google Scholar
  26. Krausmann E, Mushtaq F (2008) A qualitative Natech damage scale for the impact of floods on selected industrial facilities. Nat Hazard 46(2):179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krausmann E, Cruz AM, Affeltranger B (2010) The impact of the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake on industrial facilities. J Loss Prev Proc Ind 23:242–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindell MK, Perry RW (1997) Hazardous materials releases in the Northridge earthquake: implications for seismic risk assessment. Risk Anal 17(2):147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mannan S (ed) (2005) Lees’ Loss prevention in the process industries, vol 2, 3rd edn. Elsevier Butterworth, HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  30. MARS (2008) Major Accident Reporting System, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Italy Accessed 2008
  31. MHIDAS (2001) Major Hazard Incident Data Service. Health and Safety Executive, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  32. NRC (2008) United States National Response Center Database. United States Coast Guard. Accessed 2008
  33. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) (2007) Contribution of Working Group II to the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Paterson E, del Re D, Wang Z (2008) The 2008 Wenchuan earthquake: risk management lessons and implications. Risk Management Solutions Inc., USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Rasmussen K (1995) Natural events and accidents with hazardous materials. J Hazard Mat 40:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reinders JEA, Ham JM (2003) Casualties resulting from flooding of industrial sites. Delft Cluster Publication DC1-233-10, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  37. Renni E, Krausmann E, Cozzani V (2010) Industrial accidents triggered by lightning. J Hazard Mat 184:42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salzano E, Iervolino I, Fabbrocino G (2003) Seismic risk of atmospheric storage tanks in the framework of quantitative risk analysis. J Loss Prev Proc Ind 16:403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Showalter PS, Myers MF (1994) Natural disasters in the United States as release agents of oil, chemicals, or radiological materials between 1980–9: analysis and recommendations. Risk Anal 14(2):169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singh JP (1995) Seismic loading: code versus site specific. Portland Regional Seminar on Seismic Engineering Issues, Portland, USA, September 1995. Cited 18 Feb 2010
  41. Steinberg LJ, Cruz AM (2004) When natural, technological disasters collide: lessons from the Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999. Nat Hazard Rev 5(3):121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. TAD (2004) The Accident Database, v4.1. Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  43. Tugnoli A, Cozzani V, Landucci G (2007) A consequence-based approach to the quantitative assessment of inherent safety. AIChE J 53:3171–3182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Uijt de Haag PAM, Ale BJM (1999) Guidelines for Quantitative Risk Assessment (Purple Book). Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  45. US Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Lightning hazard to facilities handling flammable substances. EPA 550-F-97-002cGoogle Scholar
  46. Valleé A (2004) Natech disasters risk management in France. Cited 25 Jan 2011
  47. Yeh H, Robertson I, Preuss J (2005) Development of design guidelines for structures that serve as tsunami vertical evacuation sites. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Open File Report 2005-4Google Scholar
  48. Young S, Balluz L, Malilay J (2004) Natural and technologic hazardous material releases during and after natural disasters: a review. Sci Tot Env 322:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Krausmann
    • 1
  • Elisabetta Renni
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michela Campedel
    • 2
  • Valerio Cozzani
    • 2
  1. 1.European Commission, Joint Research CentreInstitute for the Protection and Security of the CitizenIspraItaly
  2. 2.Department of Chemical, Mining and Environmental Engineering, Alma Mater StudiorumUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations