Skip to main content
Clean Hydrogen Partnership

Event

Event ID
88
Quality
Description
A compressed hydrogen tube trailer overturned while travelling. One of the ten tubes released hydrogen, which ignited. The hydrogen in the other tubes released later.

[Zalosh and Short, 1978]
Event Initiating system
Classification of the physical effects
Hydrogen Release and Ignition
Nature of the consequences
Fire (No additional details provided)
Macro-region
North America
Country
United States
Date
Main component involved?
Valve (Generic)
How was it involved?
Rupture & Formation Of A Flammable H2-Air Mixture
Initiating cause
Impact, Rollover, Crash
Root causes
Root CAUSE analysis
The INITIATING CAUSE was rupture of a valve on one of the tube of a tube trailer.
The ROOT CAUSE was the loss of control of the vehicle.
The text in the source is unclear regarding the sequence of the incident following the development of a fire on one of the tube. Was the hydrogen release from the other tubes a manual intervention of the first responders, or automatically triggered by the increase of temperature due to the fire?

Facility

Application
Hydrogen Transport And Distribution
Sub-application
CGH2 tube trailer
Hydrogen supply chain stage
Hydrogen Transport (No additional details provided)
All components affected
piping
Location type
Open
Operational condition

Emergency & Consequences

Number of injured persons
2
Number of fatalities
0
Currency
US$
Property loss (onsite)
70000
Property loss (offsite)
0
Emergency action
First responders from the local community and the university campus were quickly on the scene. Once the injured were attended to and the site secured, response efforts focused first on assessing potential hazards (electrical, fire, hazardous materials, etc.). Campus personnel worked into the night to board up windows, isolate utility services, clean up debris, and otherwise secure the affected laboratories.
Emergency evaluation
There were a number of factors that mitigated the damage and allowed normal building activities to resume relatively quickly:

1. The laboratory group practiced good housekeeping, which minimized secondary impacts from the explosion.

2. Emergency information about hazards in the laboratory was posted outside the door and was helpful to emergency responders.

3. The Emergency Action Plan for the building had identified exit routes and a plan for evacuating the building in the event of an emergency. Building occupants followed the plan in a timely manner.

4. During the recent remodelling of the building, utilities were reconfigured for the laboratories such that each laboratory could be isolated. This reconfiguration of utilities allowed service to the affected laboratories to be cut off while service to the remaining laboratories in the building continued to function.

5. Cooperation between local first responders and campus personnel was excellent. This cooperative approach was built on a history of exercises and coordination meetings to strengthen working relationships.

Event Nature

Release type
gas
Involved substances (% vol)
H2 100%
Presumed ignition source
Not reported

References

Reference & weblink

Extract from Table III of Appendix A of Zalosh and Short<br />
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HYDROGEN FIRE AND EXPLOSION INCIDENTS<br />
Quarterly Report No. 2 for Period December 1, 1977 - February 28, 1978<br />
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6566131<br />
(accessed September 2020)

Event incident I-1971110051 of the PHMSA database (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1996),<br />
https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov/analytics/saw.dll?Portalpages<br />
(accessed September 2024)

JRC assessment