Process Safety and Environmental Protection 128 (2019) 193–202

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psep

Prevention of accidents to storage tanks for liquid products

used in agriculture
Petr Trávníček a,∗ , Luboš Kotek b , Petr Junga a , Tomáš Koutný a , Jana Novotná a ,
Tomáš Vítěz a
a
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Engineering, Mendel University in Brno, Czech Republic
b
Department of Production Systems and Virtual Reality, Brno University of Technology, Czech Republic

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The storage of liquid substances like livestock slurry, liquid fertilizer, digested material and many others is
Received 29 March 2019 an integral part of farms. The storage is realized in tanks with a volume of several cubic meters up to several
Received in revised form 15 May 2019 thousand cubic meters. Various materials such as steel, reinforced concrete, plastics and combinations of
Accepted 23 May 2019
these materials are used to construct such containers, less often wood or composite materials. Compared
Available online 27 May 2019
to the chemical industry, the stored substances are not toxic to the human body, and in the event of
accidents, only minimal damage to human health is usually caused. Hazardousness of stored substances
Keywords:
consist of harmfulness to the environment, mainly due to the high concentration of these substances. In
Environment
Accident
particular, water resources are threatened, both surface water and underground drinking water sources.
Europe In general, agriculture is often overlooked sectors. Despite that it is a crucial sector for human existence.
Agriculture As is the case with the safety of operation of technological equipment. In the field of chemical industry
Statistical analysis hundreds of publications have been written on this subject; in the field of agriculture, these publications
are rather an exception. Employees working in the chemical industry are regularly trained to deal with
emergencies, with employees in the agricultural sector this is an exception. It is clear from various reports
that the accident is not avoided even in this sector. The authors collected a total of 241 records of accidents
resulting in leakage of stored material from the tanks. Relative number of accidents causes by human error
is 17%, organizational causes 20.7%, external causes 20.7%, and other causes 14.1%. Unknown causes were
found in 27.4%. The data were statistically processed and selected emergency scenarios was described in
more detail. The output of the work is recommendations for the safe operation of storage tanks.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers.

1. Introduction
In 2013, there were 10.8 million agricultural holdings within the
EU-28. An analysis by economic size shows that among these there
were 6.5 million (or 59.8%) that had a standard output in excess of
2 000 D (EUROSTAT, 2015a). The average farm size in the EU-27
rose from 11.9 ha to 14.5 ha between 2005 and 2010; the largest
farms grew most (EUROSTAT, 2015b). In 2005–2010 there is also
an obvious increase in agricultural farms with an area of more than
50 ha. On the contrary, the number of small farms is decreasing
(EUROSTAT, 2015c). In the future, it is expected that this trend will
continue to deepen. The reason is probably that farms with a higher
agricultural area are more competitive on the agricultural prod-
uct market. The emergence of large farms also entails increased
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental
Engineering, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic.
E-mail address: petr.travnicek@mendelu.cz (P. Trávníček).
demands on the storage of solid and liquid substances, raw materi-
als, products such as liquid fertilizers, fuel, livestock manure, silage
and so on. These substances are often stored centrally, in large
quantities, which increases the risk of environmental damage. On
the other hand, large farms have higher financial resources to pro-
vide preventive measures against the release of these substances
into the environment. Leakage of stored substances may be due
to low tightness of storage tanks, accidents or unintentional act
of operators or service person. Farms most often store livestock
manure, silage, liquid fertilizers, fuel for agricultural machinery and
a small amount of pesticides. In the last 20 years, there has also
been a sharp increase in the number of biogas stations in Europe,
which are usually part of farms. At the same time, there has been
an increase in the numbers of fermenters and digestate tanks that
contain a mixture of organic matter (e.g. livestock manure, maize
silage, etc.).
The hazard of substances used in agriculture for the environ-
ment is mainly due to the high concentration of nutrients as well
as the possible presence of pathogenic microorganisms (Gerba and

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.05.035
0957-5820/© 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers.
194 P. Trávníček et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 128 (2019) 193–202
Fig. 1. Scheme of possible arrangement of an agricultural fermenter.
Smith, 2005; Nicholson et al., 2002), veterinary pharmaceuticals
(Charuaud et al., 2019; Gros et al., 2019), or toxicity to aquatic
organisms (e.g., gasoline, selected pesticides). Skinner et al. (1997)
state that agricultural wastes can also have high biological oxygen
demand (BOD), where BOD of cattle slurry can be 50 times higher
compare to domestic sewage. The result can be death of aquatic
organisms. The visible manifestation is primarily the death of fish.
This is often also presented in the media. For example approxi-
mately 20 tons of fish died in year 2002 in Germany when 1000 m3
of fermentated material leaked (WELT, 2002). Another case hap-
pened in France. Here, 35–37 tons of fish died when 900 m3 of pig
manure leaked from a tank in year 1998 (ARIA Database, 2016).
The British Environment Agency reports that in 2015 325 seri-
ous pollution incidents affected the water environment happened.
The sector responsible for the largest numbers of incidents affect-
ing water was farming – 81 incidents. Generally, the biggest cause
of incidents affecting water were containment and control failures
– 52% incidents. The document also states that slurry and silage
handling or storage was implicated in nearly half the dairy inci-
dents in 2015, may indicate safe management of these materials is
a problem (Environment Agency, 2016).
The safe operation of storage facilities in agricultural facilities is
therefore an important aspect in preventing environmental dam-
age. At present, specialists in the field of safety engineering are
primarily interested in facilities used in the chemical or petrochem-
ical industry, where the risks of environmental damage or loss of
life are higher than in the case of farms. The problem of chemi-
cal storage is dealt in many books (e.g. Lees, 1996) and papers (e.g.
Chang and Lin, 2006; Liu et al., 2017; Khakzad and Van Gelder, 2017,
etc.). The area of agriculture is rather neglected. One of the aims of
this work is to fill this g̈apänd contribute to the discussion on the
safe operation of agricultural storage tanks.
The thesis is focused on the storage of liquid substances and
products in atmospheric tanks in facilities connected with agricul-
tural production. For this purpose, a database was compiled from
a total of 241 accidents that occurred between 1982 and 2018. The
database was statistically evaluated. Subsequently, the causes of
these accidents were identified. Analyses have led to recommen-
dations for safe tank operation.
2. Material and methods
In order to collect accident data in agricultural objects, available
databases such as ARIA (ARIA, 2019), eMARS (eMARS, 2019), ZEMA
(BAM, 2019) were used. In addition, scientific papers and articles in
various periodicals were used. The internet search engine was also
used to search for information. Text strings containing the words
like accident, tank, vessel, leakage, rupture, agriculture, manure,
slurry have been entered into the search engine. These words were
entered in various combinations and in different languages. In
English, German, French, Italian and Czech. The database collected
a total of 241 items. These are the accidents that occurred between
1982 and 2018. The database is divided into several columns, which
contain: number of an accident, year, month, day, locality, country,
sector of agriculture, volume of a tank, volume of leaked liquid,
material of a tank, cause of an accident, stored substance, health
damage, and information to environment damage.
The open source software R (v. 3.5.1) (R Core Team, 2013) was
used for statistical analysis. All tests were performed at a signifi-
cance level of ␣ = 0.05.
If the text talks about the database, it is meant the database
created by the authors of the publication.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Technical design of storage tanks
This chapter will provide basic information on the most com-
mon technical designs for liquid storage containers. Types of liquid
substances that are recorded in the database and for which acci-
dental leakage has been reported are evident from Table 2, which
is presented in the chapter Basic Statistical Analysis of Accidents.
Three substances with the highest number of leakage during acci-
dent were selected. These are tanks for storage of the digestate or
anaerobic fermenters, storage tanks for livestock slurries and stor-
age tanks for liquid fertilizers. In all cases these are atmospheric
tanks. Tanks are made aboveground, half-suspended or recessed.
The ground plan is usually circular, less often polygonal, square or
rectangular. Some tanks can be equipped with a tank seal control
system. The following subchapters will describe the typical rep-
resentative of each tank type. In practice, you can meet different
solutions.
3.1.1. Anaerobic fermentors and storage of digestate
Methanogenic processes occur in the anaerobic fermenters and
the resulting biogas is collected. It is not, in the true sense of the
term, a reservoir or tank, but rather a bioreactor. The analysis
included those fermenters fitted with an integrated gasholder. The
fermenter itself is structurally based on storage tanks for livestock
liquid manure. In addition, the fermenter is equipped with a heating
register for tempering the fermented material, with a stirrer and the
above-mentioned gasholder made mainly of EPDM foil. A schematic
of a possible arrangement of an agricultural fermenter is shown
in Fig. 1. The fermenter body itself has a sandwich construction
of a circumferential sheath. The support structure is usually from
reinforced concrete or stainless steel. A thermal insulation system
fitted with an outer protective layer (trapezoidal sheet metal or less
frequently paste-like plaster with a facade coating) is attached to
the supporting structure. The construction of the storage tank for
the digestate is the same as for a storage tank for livestock liquid
manure. The construction itself can also be reinforced concrete.
 P. Trávníček et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 128 (2019) 193–202
Fig. 2. Scheme of possible arrangement of an open tank for livestock slurry storage.
Fig. 3. Scheme of high volume tank for storage of liquid fertilizer.
3.1.2. Livestock slurry
The storage tank is mostly equipped with a agitator. Stirring is
ensured either by a propeller stirrer or by hydraulic mixing with a
stream of pumped slurry. This system is also shown in the diagram
in Fig. 2. The tank is also equipped with an overflow, filling pipe
and drain which is thermally insulated and heated. In some cases,
the tank is located in the safety sump. It is a concrete area, which is
bounded by low concrete walls. The container body is a reinforced
concrete or steel structure. In some cases (mainly used in the past),
the tank is wooden, pulled by steel hoops.
3.1.3. Liquid fertilizer
Liquid fertilizers tend to be stored in containers of different
designs and volumes. They are stored in tanks the most often by
volume in units of cubic meters to hundreds of cubic meters. The
tanks are made of enamelled or stainless steel. An example of a
large-volume tank is shown on the scheme in Fig. 3. It is an enamel
steel tank. The bottom is steel, welded and with protective paint.
Alternatively, the bottom can also be made as a reinforced concrete
slab. In the bottom row there is an inlet and a neck for connection of
the drainage pipe. The bottom is provided with a drainage pipe for
remove a sediment. An overflow pipeline is connected at the top
of the tank. The tank is equipped with an exit ladder and service
platform. Large-volume tanks are, for safety reasons, placed in a
spillage bund, which must have a volume corresponding to at least
the volume of its own tank. In the case of multiple tanks in spillage
bund, the spillage bund must have a volume corresponding to at
least the volume of the largest of the tanks.
Smaller volumes of liquid fertilizers are located in agricultural
plants in containers made of UV resistant plastic. Alternatively, they
195
may be single-walled or two-shell. Fig. 4 shows a single-shell tank
scheme. The tank shown on the figure is equipped with a filler
neck, an ultrasonic level sensor, inspection holes, a ladder with a
platform, and a drain hole.
In some European countries, so-called flexible containers are
used. These are bags that adjust their shape to the amount of liq-
uid in them. They are equipped with drainage and inlet ports. The
bag itself is usually placed in a pit that is secured by an insulating
foil against any leakage into the subsoil. From the point of view
of the safety of the storage of liquid in this type of container, it
is interesting that in the incidence of 241 accidents was recorded
one case when the bag was ruptured by flying objects in a violent
storm.
4. Basic statistical analysis of accidents
A sample of 241 accidents occurring between 1982 and 2018
were subjected to statistical analysis. Fig. 5 shows the number
of accidents occurring in individual years. It can be seen from
the literature that the number of accidents for this period can
be expected to be much higher. The aforementioned document
from the UK Environmental Agency mentions that only in the UK
there were 81 major incidents with an impact on the aquatic envi-
ronment in 2015 in the agricultural sector. Serious accidents are
considered all accidents which are classified under Category 1 and
Category 2. (Environment Agency, 2016). In 2014 it was 83 inci-
dents (Environment Agency, 2015) and in 2013 it was 68 accidents.
Therefore, it can be assumed that this sample subjected to statistical
analysis is rather a random sample.
196 P. Trávníček et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 128 (2019) 193–202

Fig. 4. Scheme of small volume tank for storage of liquid fertilizer.

Fig. 5. The number of accidents in individual years.

Fig. 5 shows only the absolute numbers of accidents, which are
considerably variable over the years. From the data shown in Fig. 5
is clear that the number of accidents is gradually increasing with
a peak around 2012, then the number of accidents is decreasing
again. However, authors Nicholson et al. (2002) states that the
number of incidents classified in Category 1 has declined steadily
between 1991 and 1998. In 1991, there were 99 incidents, and only
22 incidents in 1998. This trend is attributed to the increased aware-
ness of the need for careful system operation, encouraged by the
availability of a generous Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
grant and the introduction of the Control Pollution Regulations in
1991 (Nicholson et al., 2002).
The trend which is possible to observe in collected data (see
Fig. 5) is contrary to Nicholson et al., 2000. The choice of information
source is crucial thing. Authors Nicholson et al. choose govern-
mental agency as information source. Information came only from
Wales and England. Authors of this paper choose databases, reports,
news. Information came from whole Europe. The determination
of trends in collected data by authors of this paper is misleading.
The reason is that information availability and intensity of infor-
mation sharing increase in time. This results in less likelihood of
finding information about an accident in the past than at present.
This fact significantly distorts calculated trends which then cannot
correspond to reality.
The reported incidents occurred in three countries in France
(55.6%), Germany (39%) and Czech Republic (5.4%). It goes with-
out saying that accidents are happening in all European countries.
The representation of these countries is due to the availability of
more detailed information on accidents.
Table 1 shows the absolute and relative numbers of accidents per
sector of the agricultural industry. The ranking according to these
sectors was reported according to NAF (Nomenclature d’activités
 P. Trávníček et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 128 (2019) 193–202 197

Table 1
Share of various agricultural sector on accidents.

Absolute number of accidents Relative number of accidents Confidence interval (0.95)

Sector
[-] [%] [%]

Growing of cereals (except rice), leguminous crops and oil seeds 14 5.8 3.2 – 9.6
Growing of grapes 2 0.8 0.1 – 3
Growing of other tree and bush fruits and nuts 2 0.8 0.1 – 3
Growing of pome fruits and stone fruits 1 0.4 0.1 – 2.3
Growing of vegetables and melons, roots and tubers 1 0.4 0.1 – 2.3
Mixed farming 89 36.9 30.8 – 43.4
Production of biogas 102 42.3 36 – 48.8
Raising of dairy cattle 7 2.9 1.2 – 5.9
Raising of other cattle and buffaloes 3 1.2 0.3 – 3.6
Raising of poultry 4 1.7 0.5 – 4.2
Raising of swine/pigs 13 5.4 2.9 – 9
Support activities for crop production 2 0.8 0.1 – 3
Raising of other animals 1 0.4 0.1 – 2.3

Table 2
Absolute and relative number of accidents of various leaked material.

Material Absolute frequencies Relative frequencies Confidence interval (0.95)

[-] [%] [%]

Slurry of livestock 51 21.2 16.2 – 26.9

Fuel oil 12 5.0 2.6 – 8.5
Gasoline / Diesel 28 11.6 7.9 – 16.4
Fermentor filling / digestate 62 25.7 20.3 – 31.7
Pesticides 5 2.1 0.7 – 4.8
Liquid fertilizer 47 19.5 14.7 – 25
Other 11 4.6 2.3 – 8
Unknown 25 10.4 6.8 – 14.9

française code). It is clear from the table that the P̈roduction
of biogass̈ector and the M̈ixed Farmings̈ector is the largest. The
P̈roduction of biogass̈ector has included the accidents associated
with biogas production in biogas plants where agricultural prod-
ucts are processed. This type of accidents can be recorded in
databases since 2002, when biogas stations in Europe are devel-
oping rapidly.
Table 2 shows the absolute and relative numbers of accidents
in relation to the type of leakage material. The representation of
individual materials corresponds to the sector where the mate-
rial is used. Fermentor Filling/Digestate is on the first place. This
includes the material (mostly a mixture of silage from energy crops
and manure) located in fermenters or in tanks with digestate. It is
a liquid material with a dry matter content of about 6–8%. The sec-
ond largest representation has the material s̈lurry of livestock¨. This
item includes: general livestock manure (pork, beef slurry), chicken
drop, silage leachate.
A total of 97 cases were found in the database, from which it
was possible to determine the volume of the tank with stored liq-
uid material. Altogether, in 172 cases, it was possible to determine
the volume of liquid leaked from the tank. And in 42 cases it was
possible to determine the ratio between the leaked amount of sub-
stance and the stored amount of substance. In 164 cases it was
also possible to ascertain whether or not environmental damage
occurred. The database showed that environment was affected in
82% cases. In most cases, nearby watercourses were affected and in
a few cases the soil was affected.
Table 3 shows the results of exploratory data analysis (SD - stan-
dard deviation, IQR - interquartile range, S-W - Shapiro–Wilk test).
A total of three parameters are evaluated: Volume of a tank, Leak-
age and Volume to leakage ratio (the ratio between the amount of
leak and the size of the tank provided that the tank was full). In the
V̈olume of a tankänd L̈eakagep̈arameters, the means and median
values were compared. The mean of Volume of a tank is 297 m3 and
the mean of parameter Leakage is 530 m3 . Obviously, it is nonsense
from a physical point of view. However, medians of same parame-
ters are 40 m3 , 30 m3 respectively. That suggests that data files have
probably high variability, are significantly skewed, and outliers are
present. This fact is confirmed by Fig. 6, where histograms and box
plots of data files are shown. It is clear from box plots that in the data
files V̈olume of a tankänd L̈eakageäre a high number of outliers. The
most of tanks are with the volume up to 500 m3 is evident from the
histogram. It means that approximately 80 accidents occurred at
tanks with the volume up to 500 m3 . A closer examination of the
data in the database showed that the highest value of the storage
volume is 3400 m3 . These tanks were used in the P̈roduction of bio-
gass̈ector. The volume of 2000 m3 (livestock liquid manure) is the
highest value recorded outside this sector. Liquid fertilizers were
stored in tanks up to 100 m3 . However, larger volumes are used
in the P̈roduction of biogass̈ector. The data show that the highest
value of the leaked volume of monitored substances was 14,000 m3 .
In total, the first 17 highest values of leaked volumes were related
to the P̈roduction of biogass̈ector. Histogram related to parameter
“Volume to leakage Ratio” shows that 80–100 % leaked from a tank
in most cases.
When taking into account the impact on the operator’s health,
it is clear that no fatal injury occurred in the determined sample
during the accidents. Injuries occurred in 5 cases out of 241 cases.
A total of 12 people were injured, 1 people were seriously injured.
The serious injury and one light injury are related to leakage of
liquid from a tank – in this case operators was affected by a liquid
flow. Other light injuries were caused by inhalation of vapors from
leaked liquid, contact of liquid with skin or eyes, bruises or slashes.
In this case operators were hospitalized and observed for several
days.
5. Causes of accidents
Determining primary causes of accidents from database records
is very complicated. The databases usually contain only fragmen-
tary information. For example, the cause of an accident is failure
of a pipeline in the database. Detailed information whether it was
material defect or neglected maintenance is missing. Thus, in some
cases, the primary cause can only be estimated. Table 4 shows the
198 P. Trávníček et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 128 (2019) 193–202

Table 3
Exploratory data analysis of selected parameters.

Mean SD IQR Median S-W

Parameter
[m3 ] [m3 ] [m3 ] [m3 ] [-]

Volume of a tank 297 677 48 40 < 2.2·10−16

Leakage 530 1633 397 30 < 2.2·10−16
[-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
Volume to leakage ratio 0.52 0.40 0.87 0.48 6.31·10−5

Volume of a tank Leakage Volume to leakage ratio

Parameter
[m3 ] [m ]3
[-]

Mean [m3 ] 297 530 0.52

SD [m3 ] 677 1633 0.40
IQR [m3 ] 48 397 0.87
Median [m3 ] 40 30 0.48
S-W [-] < 2.2·10−16 < 2.2·10−16 6.31·10−5

SD- standard deviation, IQR- interquartile range, S–W- Shapiro–Wilk test.

Table 4
The categories of accident causes.

Category Subcategory Absolute number of accidents Relative number of accidents Confidence interval (0.95)
[-] [%] [%]

Operator Error 26 10.8 7.2 - 15.4

Human Error Malicious Intervention 15 6.2 3.5 - 10.1
In total 41 17.0 12.5 - 22.4
Design of plant/equipment 4 1.7 0.45 - 4.2
Supervision 41 17.0 12.5 - 22.4
Organizational Maintenance/repair 1 0.4 0.01 - 2.3
Organized procedures 4 1.7 0.45 - 4.2
In total 50 20.7 15.8 - 26.4
Natural Event 8 3.3 1.4 - 6.4
External Utilities Failure 42 17.4 12.9 - 22.8
In total 50 20.7 15.8 - 26.4
Other* – 34 14.1 10.0 - 19.2
Unknown – 66 27.4 21.9 - 33.5
*
e.g. fire, explosion, high-cycle stress.

categories of accident causes and their subcategories. Cause cate-
gories have been taken from the Major Industrial Accident Database
- eMARS. Out of 241 cases in 175 cases, the cause of the accident was
identified. It is clear from the table that the categories Human Error,
Organizational Causes and External Causes are balanced in terms of
representation. The most common subcategory is S̈upervisionänd
Ütilities Failure¨. Chang and Lin (2006) carried out a similar analy-
sis in his work on the accident of storage bins in the chemical and
petrochemical industries (sample of 242 accidents). In this work,
the most common cause of the accident was Lightning, Mainte-
nance work, Operational Error and Equipment Failure. Lightning as
the cause of the accident was not recorded in our work. This is due
to the fact, that our work is focused on the leakage of stored liquid
substances that are not flammable. The causes of specific accidents
are then listed in the fishbone diagram (see Fig. 7).
The database shows that during the operation there are also
accidents where a total collapse tank occurred. These are incidents
where massive material leaks occur. As the tanks are not equipped
with an emergency sump, the material is spilled into the surround-
ings. The environment is damaged in the most of cases. A total tank
collapse can be caused by:
• increased hydrostatic pressure to which the tank is not designed,
• rapid changes in the liquid level,
• corrosion of supporting parts or joints,
• weld joint defects,
• due to buoyancy force.
These situations are recorded in the database. Furthermore, the
issues is discussed in detail in the work. The list also includes the
issue of condensation of vapor, eventually the change of moisture
in the tank, although such a type of accident in the database is
not listed. The list is given because in the chemical industry such
accidents are registered. Theoretically, they can also occur in the
case of tank used in agricultural sector.
5.1. Hydrostatic pressure
Storage tanks are designed for a maximum value of allowable
stress. Changing the type of liquid stored may result in exceeding
this limit value. Subsequently, the storage tank can collapse. This
is also evident from the case of the accident described by Schmidt
(2017): “Two people were seriously injured in a stack collapse. The
tank was originally designed for the storage of petroleum prod-
ucts. It broke when it was filled with a 32% solution of urea and
ammonium nitrate.”
It should be noted here that the oil product (gasoline) density is
approximately 750 kg·m−3 . While the density of a 32% solution of
urea and ammonium nitrate is 1330 kg·m−3 . This implies that about
77% increase in hydrostatic pressure, which acts on the storage tank
walls, during the exchange of these substances.
The primary cause of this event is difficult to determine. Improp-
erly applied or non-implemented change management in the
company may be the cause of accident. Change management is a
key part of the safety management system. A study by Piong et al.
(2017) concludes from an extensive analysis of industrial accidents
that about 9.1% of industrial accidents are caused by unmanaged
change management.
The term r̈upture of the tank” is mentioned in nine cases in
database. The latest such accident was recorded in 2010.
 P. Trávníček et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 128 (2019) 193–202 199

Fig. 6. Histograms and box plots of values of total volume of tanks, leaked material and volume to leakage ratio.

5.2. Quick change of liquid level
The expansion of the gas above liquid surface occurs in the case
of quick change of liquid level. At the same time, there will be a
sharp drop in pressure. This can result in a tank collapse. This can
happen in the case of the wrong dimensioning of the vent pipe/size,
blocking of the vent pipe/hole (e.g. freezing, plugging), loss of tank
integrity or the choice of a hole for other purposes by operator.
The last case is evident from the description of the accident by
author Ennis (2006): “For reasons of leak testing, the reservoir was
filled with water. The service contractor had instructions for the
liquid to be discharged through the 4 drain port, but the water
200 P. Trávníček et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 128 (2019) 193–202

Fig. 7. Fishbone diagram of accident causes.

was discharged through an inspection orifice with diameter 24 to
accelerate. There was a sudden drop in pressure and the container
was deformed during the discharge.”
Change of pressure at a sudden change in the level of liquid is
possible to show at the following example:
Consider a large-volume tank with a diameter of 10 m. The air
pressure above the liquid level is p1 = 101 kPa, the height of the
air column above the liquid level is h =3 m. Assume an isothermal
process. At the same time, assume that there is no air exchange
with the surroundings. Using the ideal gas equation of state, it can
be calculated that when the level drops by 10 cm, the air pressure
above the level drops by p = 3.26 kPa (32.6 mbar). With reference
to standard EN 14 015, it can be seen, that if this drop is sudden and
the pressure is not equalized, the container may deform.
The strict observance of work procedures during emptying
tanks, proper dimensioning of vent hole are a prevention of this
type of accident.
5.3. Corrosion
Material corrosion according to a study by Nugroho et al. (2016)
is one of the major sources of tank leak risk. In order to reduce
the risk of tank corrosion, the issue of corrosion should be consis-
tently considered at the design stage of the plant with a view to
its future use. In the context of tank safety, corrosion can be per-
ceived as damage to the metallic material of the tank by a reaction
with its environment (Bardal, 2004). Corrosion of metallic materi-
als can be divided into three main groups according to the corrosive
environment:
• Microorganisms can accelerate rates of partial reactions in
corrosion processes or shift the mechanism for corrosion.
Microorganisms do not produce unique types of corrosion;
instead, they produce localized attack including pitting, dealloy-
ing, enhanced erosion corrosion, enhanced galvanic corrosion,
stress corrosion cracking, and hydrogen embrittlement. Micro-
biologically Influenced Corrosion has been reported for all
engineering metals and alloys with the exception of predomi-
nantly titanium and high-chromium–nickel alloys.
Nicholson et al. (2002) mentions the possible cause of livestock
liquid manure leakage by corrosion of steel plate joints used for
construction of above-ground steel circular tanks. Corrosion causes
the loss of steel due to rust formation and flaking of rusted areas.
This results in pitting on the side of tank and more importantly,
the formation on concave cup profiles around bolt horizontal and
vertical edges and causes the distance from the panel edge to the
centre line of the bolt holes to be reduced (Sangarapillai et al., 1994).
The bottom of these tanks are another problematic parts of above-
ground steel tanks. At these places, inspection is relatively difficult
(Mejía et al., 2010). Chemical industry experience shows that cor-
rosion can only be one of the causes. The tank may collapse by a
combination of many causes. One such example is the collapse of
the UK tank in 2009, where about 340 tonnes of water / solvent
mixture (mainly toluene) leaked. For example, Geary and Hobbs
(2013) states the following case: Failure of the tank had occurred
under the action of the hoop load. Failure occurred due to a combi-
nation of general internal corrosion and more localized corrosion,
probably associated with the action of jet stirrer (Geary and Hobbs,
2013).

• Corrosion in an electrically conductive environment (wet corro-

sion) where the corrosive environment is most often an aqueous
solution with dissolved electrolyte. In this case, the corrosion
process is electrochemical.
• Corrosion at the boundary of two solid environments (e.g. sed-
iment or condensed salt layers) - (poultice corrosion). The
corrosion process is also electrochemical.
• Corrosion in non-electrolytes (dry corrosion) is a corrosion state
where the corrosive environment is dry gas. In this case, the cor-
rosion process is chemical.
5.4. Welt joint failures
Faults in welded joints leading to leakage or massive loss of tank
integrity in some cases can be caused by several mechanisms:
• Low quality weld joint (typically for butt joint), where the weld
channel is not sufficiently filled with melt or the weld contains
gas bubbles. In the case of tanks, the risk is mainly due to poor
quality welds of the framework.
 P. Trávníček et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 128 (2019) 193–202
• Weld cracks - hot and cold cracks may arise in the case of tanks.
Hot cracks can due to the presence of hazardous additives in the
base material (sulfur, manganese), increased heat input in the
case of stainless steel (Lundin et al., 1980). Cold cracks are usu-
ally formed at the edge of the weld caused by the presence of
hydrogen in the non-equilibrium structures (martensite).
• Thermal influence of ambient material - This mechanism typi-
cally occurs in steels with a high carbon content. Here, the internal
stress of the material increases and cracks around the weld can
occur, as shown by Lin et al. (2006).
Not only evaluation of the welding process is very important
in risk assessment, but also the evaluation of the material and the
geometry of the tank.
5.5. Buoyancy
The flood or the height of a groundwater level can threat a sta-
bility of underground or overground tanks. This includes above all
tanks which are empty or almost empty. For example, the tank
which are connected with soil only by steel framework is partially
flooded. In this case the buoyancy acting on the specified surface
can be higher than the value of allowable stress of tank construc-
tion. The tank can collapse under these conditions. Underground
tanks are threatened by similar way. The level of underground
water can increase significantly during floods. Subsequently, the
tank can be damaged and liquid substance can drain to the environ-
ment. This case can be found in the database. It occurred in 2011 in
France. Oil products leaked to the environment and drinking water
source was contaminated. Other liquid substances used in agricul-
ture can be stored in tanks which are located below ground level. It
can be estimated that the accident of this type occurred in the past
already. However, the record about this type of accident was not
found in database.
5.6. Vapor condensation
Hot water vapor is used in the maintenance, cleaning or disin-
fection of tanks. If the tank cools down, steam condensation may
occur partially or completely. If the internal operation regulation of
the company for the storage tank maintenance is incorrectly set, or
the pressure relief valve is incorrectly designed, the pressure drops
and consequently the tank is deformed. The pressure drop can be
quite sudden due to cooling due to degraded atmospheric condi-
tions (e.g. rain, wind). This is especially true of outdoor tanks. The
issue of breathing losses from low-pressure tanks is addressed, for
example, in the work of Moncalvo et al. (2016). The basic theoretical
computational relationships for the determination of the amount
of condensed vapor are presented by Griffin (2000). For example,
Schmidt (2017) presents a description of this type of accident in
his work. After the steaming of the atmospheric tank, employees
left and closed the inspection hole. Thunderstorms came during
the night and the rain cooled down. The construction of tank then
collapsed (Schmidt et al., 2017).
To get a better idea about the threat of this phenomenon, we
present two theoretical examples:
1 Consider that there is saturated steam at 100 ◦ C in the tank area.
The saturated steam pressure at such a temperature is 101,325 Pa.
In the case of hermetically sealed tank, the vapor in the tank
will be gradually cool down and the water vapor will condense.
When cooling to 95 ◦ C, the pressure drops to 84.6 kPa (Šafařík
and Vestfálová, 2016). The negative pressure value is therefore
approximately 17 kPa (170 mbar). However, a low negative pres-
sure value is always considered in the design and construction
of the tank. This is also evident from the technical standard
201
EN 14 015, where the permissible negative pressure value for
non-pressure tanks is ≤ 5 mbar (500 Pa), for low-pressure tanks
p ≤ 8.5 mbar (850 Pa). The risk of tank collapsing is therefore con-
siderable.
2 The same is valid for humid air. Consider a tank with humid air,
relative humidity ϕ = 40% and temperature t1 = 50 ◦ C. Due to the
change in atmospheric conditions, the air is cooled to t2 = 20 ◦ C.
Let’s assume again a sealed system. The total air pressure in the
tank is (according to Dalton’s law) given by the sum of the dry air
partial pressure and the water vapor partial pressure contained
in the air. The partial water vapor pressure in the humid air of
a given relative humidity is then calculated according to well-
known relationship:
pp = ϕ · pp " (1)
Where pp " denotes the saturated water vapor partial pressure.
The partial pressure of saturated water vapor is pp1 ” = 12.35 kPa
at t1 = 50 ◦ C (Šafařík and Vestfálová, 2016). The value of the
water vapor partial pressure in 40% relative humidity is equal to
pp1 = 4.94 kPa. The vapor condensation occurs at approximately a
temperature of tr = 32 ◦ C. The partial water vapor pressure in satu-
rated wet air at t2 = 20 ◦ C is pp2 " = 2.339 kPa. The pressure difference
is about p = 2600 Pa (26 mbar). Again, this value is significantly
higher than the negative pressure value given in the technical stan-
dard EN 14 015 for non-pressure tanks and low-pressure tanks.
It follows from the previous one that the attention must be paid
to the design of a pressure tank equalization system (e.g. pressure
relief valve or vent). These devices are designed for a certain air vol-
ume flow. In case of high temperature fluctuations in a short time,
it is advisable to thermally insulate the tank. The reduction of the
vapor/gas volumetric flow due to pressure equalization between
the tank and the environment is reason.
6. Conclusion
The work was focused on accidents in storage of liquid sub-
stances in agriculture. It is clear from the database that these
accidents do not pose a high risk to human health. Simultaneously,
these accidents cannot be compared to accidents in the chemical or
petrochemical industries in terms of health and property damage.
The environment, especially drinking water sources, is endangered
in the case of accidents in the agricultural sector. Drinking water is a
strategic resource to be protected due to the current weather devel-
opment in some countries in Europe. In this respect, it is therefore
important to pay increased attention in this sector. Trying to reduce
the risk to the lowest possible level is appropriate. In particular,
communication between operators of these facilities needs to be
improved in this area. In many areas, the tanks are in disrepair and
the risk of leakage of stored substance to the environment is high.
However, the construction of new storage tanks requires signifi-
cant investment costs. These are hundreds of thousands of euros.
Some operators cannot afford such an investment. One of the ways
to do this could be to use specific subsidies from individual states
for the reconstruction or construction of new storage facilities, the
purchase of level monitoring devices, the detection of substance
leaks, etc. In many cases, the cause of accidents may be insufficient
or completely missing maintenance of storage tanks, lack of control
of storage tank elements (e.g. checking welds, armature, checking
for material loss due to corrosion, etc.). Environmental damage can
also be minimized by operators’ readiness to deal with emergen-
cies (floods, fires, uncontrolled leakage of liquid material from the
tank, etc.). However, operators are often unprepared, lack of train-
ing. From the above information, the following recommendations
may arise for the operator:
202 P. Trávníček et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 128 (2019) 193–202
• Consistent elaboration of emergency plans for the case of leakage
of harmful substances into surface water or groundwater (they
are often only formally processed in practice).
• Regular training of procedures to reduce the environmental
impact of leaked substances (e.g. once a year).
• Processing of procedures and instructions for the safe use of stor-
age tanks.
• Purchase of rubber mats to seal sewer inlets (or ballooning kits).
• Regular inspection of tanks, consistent inspection of joints and
welds on steel tanks.
• In the construction of new large-volume tanks, also carry out a
spillage bund. To create an insulating wall made of clay soil for
existing tanks.
• Check the geometry of tanks regularly.
• When building new tanks, to put emphasis on the system design
from the point of view of the safety of the project (e.g. to pay
attention to the proper design of vent hole or pipe in the case of
atmospheric tank).
• When purchasing already used containers, to make sure that the
construction and material for the storage of the new liquid are
suitable. Thus, in some form, to apply change management.
It is clear, that the above recommendations are incorporated in
legislation in many European countries. However, the question is
the consistency of operators in the fulfilling of legal obligations.
However, this is a problem in all sectors, not just in agriculture.
References
ARIA Database, 2019. S. D. and E. French Ministry of Ecology, Available from WWW,
https://www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr.
ARIA Database, Available from WWW, 2016. S. D. and E. French Ministry of Ecology.
http://www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/find-accident/?lang1/4en.
BAM, Umwelt Bundesamt, Available from WWW, 2019. Central Reporting and Eval-
uation Office for Major Accidents and Incidents in Process Engineering Facilities.
http://www.infosis.uba.de/index.php/en/zema/index.html.
Bardal, E., 2004. Corrosion and Protection. Springer, London; New York.
eMARS: Major Accident Reporting System, Available from WWW: 2019. European
Commission. https://emars.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.
Ennis, T., 2006. Pressure relief considerations for Low-pressure (atmospheric) stor-
age tanks. Hazards XIX Symposium Series No. 151.
Environment Agency, Available from WWW, 2014. Pollution Incidents - 2013 Evi-
dence Summary. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment data/file/651713/Pollution incidents 2013 evidence summary
LIT 10103.pdf.
Environment Agency, Available from WWW, 2015. Pollution Incidents - 2014 Evi-
dence Summary. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment data/file/651710/Pollution incidents 2014 evidence summary
LIT 10127.pdf.
Environment Agency, Available from WWW, 2016. Pollution Incidents - 2015 Evi-
dence Summary. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment data/file/651707/Pollution incidents 2015 evidence summary
LIT 10487.pdf.
Eurostat, Available from WWW, 2015a. Farm Structure Statistics. https://ec.europa.
eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Farm structure statistics#Main
statistical findings.
Eurostat, Available from WWW, 2015b. Agriculture Statistics – The Evo-
lution of Farm Holdings. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Agriculture statistics - the evolution of farm
holdings&oldid=221500.
Eurostat, Available from WWW, 2015c. Distribution of Holdings by Size Class
(utilised Agricultural Area), 2005 and 2010. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Distribution of holdings by size
class (utilised agricultural area), 2005 and 2010.png.
Geary, W., Hobbs, J., 2013. Catastrophic failure of a carbon steel storage tank due to
internal corrosion. Case Stud. Eng. Fail. Anal. 1, 257–264, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.csefa.2013.09.002.
Griffin, M.L., 2000. Protecting atmospheric storage tanks against vacuum col-
lapse. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 13, 83–89, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-
4230(99)00074-1.
Gros, M., Mas-Pla, J., Boy-Roura, M., Geli, I., Domingo, F., Petrović, M., 2019. Veterinary
pharmaceuticals and antibiotics in manure and slurry and their fate in amended
agricultural soils: Findings from an experimental field site. Sci. Total Environ.
654, 1337–1349, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.061.
Chang, J.I., Lin, C., 2006. A study of storage tank accidents. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind.
19, 51–59, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2005.05.015.
Gerba, Charles P., Smith, J.M., 2005. Sources of pathogenic microorganisms and their
fate during land application of wastes. J. Environ. Qual. 34, 42–48, http://dx.doi.
org/10.2134/jeq2005.0042.
Charuaud, L., Jarde, E., Jaffrezic, A., Thomas, M.F., Le Bot, B., 2019. Veterinary pharma-
ceutical residues from natural water to tap water: sales, occurrence and fate. J.
Hazard. Mater. 361, 169–186, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.08.075.
Mejía, J.A., Hay, J., Mustafa, V., Santa Fe, J., 2010. Aboveground storage tank floor
corrosion condition assessment. Av. Invest. Eng. 12, 9–13.
Khakzad, N., Van Gelder, P., 2017. Fragility assessment of chemical storage tanks
subject to floods. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 111, 75–84, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.psep.2017.06.012.
Lees, F.P., 1996. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, second edition. Butter-
worth Heinemann, UK.
Lin, S., Pan, J., Wung, P., Chiang, J., 2006. A fatigue crack growth model for spot welds
under cyclic loading conditions. Int. J. Fatigue 28, 792–803, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.08.003.
Liu, W.Y., Chiun-Hsun Chen, C.H., Chen, W.T., Shu, C.M., 2017. A study of caprolac-
tam storage tank accident through root cause analysis with a computational
approach. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 50, 80–90, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.
2017.09.004.
Lundin, C.D., Chou, C.-P.D., Sullivan, C.J., 1980. Hot cracking resistance of austenitic
stainless steel weld metals. Weld. J. (August), 226–232.
Moncalvo, D., Davies, M., Weber, R., Scholz, R., 2016. Breathing losses from low-
pressure storage tanks due to atmospheric weather change. J. Loss Prev. Process
Ind. 43, 702–705, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.06.006.
Nicholson, R.J., Webb, J., Moore, A., 2002. A review of the environmental effects
of different livestoc manure storage systems, and a suggested procedure for
assigning environmental ratings. Biosyst. Eng. 81, 363–377, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1006/bioe.2002.0045.
Nugroho, A., Haryadi, G.D., Ismail, R., Kim, S.J., 2016. Risk based inspection for atmo-
spheric storage tank. AIP Conf. Proc. 1725, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4945509.
Piong, H.S., Chin, K.Y., Bakar, H.T.A., Ling, C.H., Kidam, K., Ali, M.W., Hassim, M.H.,
Kamarden, H., 2017. The contribution of management of change to process safety
accident in the chemical process industry. Chem. Eng. Trans. 56, 1363–1368,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3303/CET1756228.
R Core Team, 2013. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria http://www.R-project.
org/.
Sangarapillai, V.G., Dumelow, J., Owen, J.E., Powel, D.R., 1994. In situ assessment of
panel thickness at the vertical joints of steel slurry tanks. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 59,
181–188, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1994.1075.
Schmidt, M.S., 2017. Atmospheric tank failures: mechanisms and an unexpected case
study. Process. Saf. Prog. 36, 353–361, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prs.11881.
Skinner, J.A., Lewis, K.A., Bardon, K.S., Tucker, P., Catt, J.A., Chambers, B.J., 1997.
An overview of the environmental impact of agriculture in the U.K. J. Environ.
Manage. 50, 111–128, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jema.1996.0103.
Šafařík, P., Vestfálová, M., 2016. Thermodynamics of Humid Air (In Czech: Termo-
dynamika Vlhkého Vzduchu). ČVUT, Praha.
WELT, Axel Springer SE, 2002. Available from WWW, https://www.welt.de/print-
welt/article410238/Fischsterben-durch-Manipulation-an-der-Biogas-Anlage.
html.