Skip to main content
Clean Hydrogen Partnership

Hydrogen cylinders explosion at a power plant

Event

Event ID
680
Quality
Description
[NOTE of HIAD Validator: the sources are not completely clear in describing the system involved in this incident ; the following is the most plausible option ]

The explosion happened in two hydrogen tanks ('receivers') which were receiving and storing hydrogen produced by a water electrolyser via two compressors. The hydrogen was then supplied to a further non-specified generator.
The plant had been shut down on August 24 to 26 and resumed the hydrogen production and storage on August 27. On August 28, after that the tanks had supplied hydrogen to the generator for 20 hours, the hydrogen purity in the generator dropped suddenly to 85%. The two tanks were disconnected for hydrogen purity sampling and the generator was further supplied with standard hydrogen bottles. The quality check indicated a purity of 95%. One of the two tanks was then re-connected to the electrolyser after approximately 7 hours.
Again, the purity in the generator indicated 85% hydrogen purity. 20 minutes later, both tanks exploded, resulting in two fatalities, 18 injured by fragments and extensive blast damage in a 100 m radius.
An investigation from the incident reported that all the gas supplied to the receiver over a 20-hours period had been air. The explosion has been assessed at TNT equivalent 275 kg.

Event Initiating system
Classification of the physical effects
Hydrogen Release and Ignition
Nature of the consequences
Macro-region
Asia
Country
China
Date
Main component involved?
Cgh2 Storage Vessel
How was it involved?
Internal Explosion (H2-Air Mixture)
Root causes
Root CAUSE analysis
The INITIATING cause was the erroneous and undetected supply of air to hydrogen tanks. The investigation report is confidential and not available, however one of the sources reported preliminary findings. The most probable mechanism was a pipe between the electrolysers, gas holder and water ring compressors, was full of water. This pipe was 60 cm below ground level in a trench, and probably because filled with water during the re-commissioning of the plant. The water lock, combined with at least two vents being left open at the inlet to the water ring compressor, allowed air to be sucked into this section by the compressor.

Although the exact ROOT CAUSES were not reported, a source mentioned cumbersome and counter-intuitive operative schemes and deactivated existing safeguards. Moreover, personnel had no knowledge of the hydrogen physical and combustion properties and there was a lack of HAZOP study.

Facility

Application
Power Plant
Sub-application
unspecified
Hydrogen supply chain stage
Hydrogen Storage (No additional details provided)
All components affected
hydrogen cylinders
Location type
Confined
Location description
Industrial Area
Operational condition

Emergency & Consequences

Number of injured persons
18
Number of fatalities
2
Post-event summary
Two fatalities; 18 injured by fragments. Extensive blast damage IN A RADIUS OF 100 m (Roof, storeroom and concrete blast walls destroyed).

Event Nature

Release type
gas
Involved substances (% vol)
H2 100%
Actual pressure (MPa)
6.9
Design pressure (MPa)
13.6
Presumed ignition source
Not reported
High pressure explosion
Y
High voltage explosion
N

References

Reference & weblink

Prof. J. Lee presentation at 1st European Summer School on Hydrogen Safety (ESSH)<br />
available at the HySafe project site<br />
http://www.hysafe.org/science/eAcademy/php/1stesshsprogramme.php<br />
(see slides from 13 to 15, accessed October 2020)

South China Morning Post news of 8 Aug. 1993:<br />
https://www.scmp.com/article/39587/report-reveals-list-errors?module=pe… />
(accessed August 2023)

Rigas F., Amyotte P., Hydrogen safety, Green chemistry and chemical engineering, CRC Press, Taylor & Frances Group; 2012. ISBN-13: 978-1439862315

HAZARDOUS CARGO BULLETIN INCIDENT LOG, 1992, OCT. <br />
This source is not available anymore. <br />
The HCB site goes back only to 2008 (accessed October 2020)

JRC assessment