Advances in Natech research: An overview

Progress in Disaster Science 1 (2019) 100013

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Disaster Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pdisas

Invited ViewPoint

Advances in Natech research: An overview ⁎

Ana Maria Cruz a, , Maria Camila Suarez-Paba b a b

Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto 615-8540, Japan

A R T I C L E

I N F O

Article history: Received 30 January 2019 Received in revised form 4 March 2019 Accepted 18 March 2019 Available online 22 April 2019

A B S T R A C T

Natural hazard triggered technological accidents involving the releases of hazardous materials (hazmat) are known as Natechs. These types of complex events were studied for the first time at the end of the 1970s, and in recent years have gained importance due to their increasing trend. This paper presents an overview of the advances in Natech research right up to 2018. The paper shows how Natech research was first focused on earthquakes as the main triggering event, and later shifted to hydrometeorological hazards, multi-hazard studies and cross cutting issues. The paper identifies current challenges and research gaps in both the theoretical understanding and the practical implementation and streamlining of Natech risk reduction in chemical accident regulations, and proposes a way forward for future research. Some of the main findings include the importance that interdisciplinary approaches have gained in the Natech context and the need for analyzing Natech accidents' long-term effects. Overall, increased contributions have supported Natech risk assessment and management development, but efforts are needed to enhance risk treatment, risk reduction, and risk communication strategies, without neglecting Natech education and awareness raising. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents 1. 2.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natech research trends . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Geological hazards . . . . . . . . 2.2. Hydrometeorological hazards . . . 2.3. Multi-hazard and cross-cutting issues 3. Natech research gaps and challenges . . . 4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . References and recommended reading . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction Natural hazard triggered technological accidents involving the release of hazardous materials are known as Natechs. Natechs are considered as high-consequence and low probability events, falling outside traditional risk assessment and management practices [1•]. Natech examples include: • The 1994 Milford Haven thunderstorm in the United Kingdom which caused the release and ignition of flammable vapors by a lightning strike. This generated a powerful explosion and subsequent fires that lasted ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M. Cruz).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2019.100013 2590-0617/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4

2.5 days. As a consequence, 10% of the United Kingdom's refining capacity was lost during the refinery's downtime (4.5 months) [2••]. • The 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the United States (US) caused numerous hazmat releases and oil and gas spills in the Gulf of Mexico. In one case, damage to a large storage tank at a refinery in Chalmette contaminated over 1800 homes causing long-term health-related problems, and huge economic losses in the oil and gas industries [3]. • The 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China triggered the release of ammonia and sulfuric acid which caused environmental pollution and necessitated the evacuation of 6000 residents [4]. • The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami impacted industrial parks in Iwate, Miyagi, Ibaraki, and Chiba prefectures causing hazmat releases, fires and explosions. For instance, in Chiba prefecture, the Cosmo

A.M. Cruz, M.C. Suarez-Paba /

Progress in Disaster Science 1 (2019) 100013

oil refinery fires and explosions completely damaged 17 liquefied petroleum gas tanks, generated five fireballs, and caused damage to nearby property. Furthermore, the Natech accident required the evacuation of over 1000 residents living near the refinery [5•].

c. multi-hazards and cross cutting issues. Furthermore, for each group we discuss the contributions to the various stages of the Natech risk management process. Table 1 shows the classification used.

2.1. Geological hazards

The consequences of these and other Natech accidents have highlighted the vulnerability of modern societies to these growing complex disasters. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the frequency and severity of Natech accidents is increasing [6–10] and therefore, the concern to better understand and manage these types of events has likewise increased. Advances in Natech research and lessons learned from past earthquakes, tropical cyclones, tsunami, and floods have led to the introduction of building codes, land use controls, and so on in some countries and regions (e.g., Japan, California, European Union) that specifically address Natech hazards. Furthermore, international efforts to promote Natech risk management and raise awareness are being made. Some examples include the Natech addendum of the OECD Guiding Principles for Chemical Accident Prevention, Preparedness and Response [11,12]; the United Nations Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 that highlights the need to enhance preparedness measures for technological accidents including Natechs [13]; and the Natech sub-working group at the Science and Technology Advisory Group (STAG) under the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Nevertheless, as we will show in this paper, continued efforts will be needed to reduce potential damage and losses due to increased exposure of industries and communities located in areas subject to natural hazards, environmental changes due to rapid urbanization and a changing climate. Therefore, having a clear overview of how Natech research has been and is currently addressed becomes essential. A few studies have provided overviews of Natech research. Cruz et al. (2004) [6] reported on the status of Natech risk management up to 2003. In 2007, Young et al. [14] published a review of the adverse effects on the environment and on human health of hazmat releases triggered by natural disasters. Steinberg et al. (2008) [15] prepared a state of the art on Natech risk assessment and management in Europe and the U.S. In 2016, Da Silva Nascimento and Alencar [16] carried out a systematic literature review concerning Natech accidents, and distribution and frequency of publications in the period 2000–2015. In the current paper, we present an overview of Natech research trends dating back to the 1970s up to March 2018. We then discuss the research trends by different hazards (e.g., geohazards). Then, the paper presents the current challenges and research gaps, and concluding remarks.

Earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, landslides, and other related hazards may pose significant threats to buildings and structures at industrial facilities. The impact of these hazards on a structure will depend on the characteristics of the hazard (e.g., for earthquakes the magnitude, the depth and distance from the epicenter, the geology and topography, the local soil conditions and the duration, etc.) and the vulnerability of elements at risk [18]. The adoption of updated building codes, such as the performance-based Building Standard of Japan [19] and the 2016 California Building Code [20], can help reduce vulnerability and prevent or reduce loss of life, building and infrastructure damage, and prevent or reduce the likelihood of chemical accidents. The following paragraphs summarize research concerning Natechs caused by geological hazards. Earthquake triggered Natechs have been studied since the end of the 1970s following several earthquakes in California. Some of the most important include the 1971 San Fernando [21], 1983 Coalinga [21], 1989 Loma Prieta [22], and 1994 Northridge [21] earthquakes. Several papers were published concerning the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey [23–25] which for the first time caused numerous Natech events with offsite impacts. These accidents led to increased interest due to the need to better understand the vulnerability of industry to earthquakes and to extract lessons learned. For instance, the accident analysis and the return of experiences of the Izmit [26,27] and Wenchuan [4] earthquakes, as well as the offshore Chile Bio-Bio earthquake [28], and the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami [29–32] have helped to enrich the understanding of Natech accidental dynamics, and support Natech risk assessment developments. Previous analyses have also enabled the estimation of hazmat release probabilities to improve seismic risk assessment and management strategies [33]. Furthermore, several studies have contributed to structural and process equipment damage assessment [21,34], the identification of vulnerable process equipment and potential failures [35–37], and the estimation of damage probabilities and severity of earthquake-induced Natech events [38•,39]. New quantitative Natech risk assessment methodologies were being studied since the early 2000s. In 2007, Antonioni et al. [40••] proposed a methodology for the quantitative risk assessment of major accidents triggered by seismic events. Cruz and Okada (2008) [41] proposed a qualitative methodology for the preliminary assessment of Natech risk in urban areas, and Busini et al. [42] proposed a semi-quantitative risk assessment methodology to prioritize Natech risk scenarios. There are several important contributions to emergency planning and response. Lindell and Perry (1996) [43] evaluated gaps in emergency planning for earthquake related Natechs. Steinberg et al. (2004) [44] investigated the possible impacts for seismic related hazmat releases and community preparedness in urban areas. Mori et al. [45] studied the fitness-for-duty management programs for workers engaged in stabilizing and decommissioning work at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant following the accident caused by the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami. In addition, other studies have considered the relationship between technical factors, social and organizational elements in order to improve response capacity of natural disasters in complex scenarios [46]. Other studies have contributed to improving recovery and restoration activities and community resilience [47,48]. Studies such as Steinberg et al. [44], and Yu et al. [49,50] have investigated household preparedness, behavioral actions and risk perception concerning Natechs. Other geological hazards have received less attention. Volcanic eruptions for example have been addressed predominantly from a quantitative risk assessment standpoint. Milazzo et al. (2013) [51], investigated the impact of volcanic ash fallout on process equipment, while Ancione et al. (2015) [52] and Milazzo et al. (2016) [53] studied lava flow thermalradiation impacts.

2. Natech research trends Over 230 peer reviewed papers and related documents and reports were reviewed. This paper presents a summary of the findings. For a more detailed analysis of the review results including a meta-analysis please see Suarez-Paba et al. (2019) [17••]. The contributions to Natech research are presented for three groups, namely, a. geological hazards; b. hydrometeorological hazards; and Table 1 Classification criteria for grouping and analyzing Natech research. Classification

Risk management stages

• Earthquake • Volcanic eruption • Tsunami • Landslide b) Hydrometeorological • Storms hazards • Tropical cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons) • Tornadoes • Floods • Lightning • Extreme temperatures c) Multi hazard and cross cutting

• Accident analysis and return of experiences. • Risk assessment. • Risk treatment/risk reduction. • Risk communication and risk perception.

a) Geological hazards

2

A.M. Cruz, M.C. Suarez-Paba /

Progress in Disaster Science 1 (2019) 100013

a major cause of Natechs. This has led to the development of quantitative methodologies [74•], the estimation of damage probabilities [75], frequencies of expected scenarios [76,77], and the evaluation of improved protection systems from direct lightning strikes [78]. Furthermore, domino effects due to lightning strikes have also been studied [79]. The occurrence of past flood-triggered Natechs has motivated the identification of expected process equipment damage models. Firstly, Cozzani et al. [80] constructed event trees to support quantitative risk assessment. Secondly, semi-quantitative approaches that combine bow-tie analysis and checklists to identify critical equipment and to reduce industrial facility vulnerability to flooding have been proposed [81,82]. In this regard, contributions include the development of damage models for atmospheric storage tanks [83] and horizontal cylindrical vessels [84], and the proposal of fragility models for these types of tanks [85]. Building on these contributions Antonioni et al. [86••] proposed a quantitative risk assessment methodology for Natech scenarios triggered by floods. In recent years, fragility functions and Bayesian networks have been developed to assess the vulnerability of industrial facilities to flooding [87•,88]. Lastly, the “spatialization” of possible flood impacts has been proposed to support Natech risk assessment [89]. Risk reduction of Natechs induced by floods has focused on enhancing prevention strategies [90,91], improving the reporting mechanisms [92], and developing qualitative damage scales [93]. In addition, researchers have also proposed land use planning strategies that consider flood impacts and organizational issues in urban areas [94,95]. Finally, despite the high impact of adverse climate conditions on industrial facilities and pipelines [96], research concerning the effect of extreme temperatures on industrial facilities and the potential to result in Natech accidents has received less attention, although its importance has been highlighted [2••]. Contributions include the risk assessment of gas pipelines and oil reservoirs operating at low temperatures in Russia [97].

Tsunamis, on the other hand, were scarcely addressed until fairly recently. Contributions addressing industrial facility vulnerability to tsunamis and potential damages include the work developed by Cruz et al. (2011) and Basco and Salzano (2017) [54,55]. Following the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami in 2011, the Japanese research community has been studying and preparing for a larger earthquake and tsunami along the Nankai trough which could affect coastal areas in Osaka Bay. For this purpose, studies focusing on tsunami wave load impacts on storage tanks [56•], numerical simulations of tsunami propagation and dispersion of oil spills, including oil spills from storage tanks due to sloshing [57], and computational modeling for large-scale oil spill fires on water in tsunamis [58•] have been carried out. Proposed reduction measures include the development of “flexible pipes” as a mitigation barrier to counteract tsunami risk on storage tanks located in coastal areas [59], and crude oil dispersant and absorbent materials to reduce fire propagation. The interest of this topic in Japan has been demonstrated with the launch of the documentary film “Mega Crisis” [60] in 2015. Landslides have not been widely addressed as a main cause of Natechs. The few contributions concern risk assessment. For instance, AlvaradoFranco et al. (2017) have proposed a quantitative model for assessing pipeline failure probability due to landslides [61]. In summary, the contributions to Natech risk assessment and management, particularly for earthquake-related Natechs are prevalent, and this is in part due to the fact that earthquakes have triggered multiple and simultaneous severe Natech accidents raising awareness for the need to better manage these types of risks. There is much less research related to tsunami, volcano and landslide triggered accidents. Further research concerning Natech risk communication and risk perception issues are also needed. 2.2. Hydrometeorological hazards The increasing occurrence of severe hydrometeorological disasters accompanied by Natech accidents in recent years has resulted in a growing number of studies addressing these types of events. In the US, hydrometeorological related Natechs reported to the National Response Center (NRC) database between 1990 and 2008 accounted for more than 80% of all Natechs [9]. In this paper for convenience we have divided the hydrometeorological hazard related research contributions by: storms, tropical cyclones, tornados, and wind; flooding; lightning; and extreme temperatures. Research on Natech weather-related events has been on the rise for the past 25 years. On the one hand, the accident analysis and the return of experiences have received notable attention with studies focusing on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita [62–64]. Santella et al. [63] identified Natech accidents at fixed facilities, and Cruz and Krausmann [64] investigated oil and gas releases from the offshore industry and their relationship to hurricane wind speed and storm surge heights. An assessment of the prevention and preparedness for these accidents was also discussed [62,63], as well as the emergency response to the large number of releases [3,64]. Research concerning risk assessment has concentrated on understanding possible release scenarios by determining the potential impact of hydrometeorological hazards on process equipment and infrastructure [65]. Contributions to the field of risk treatment and risk reduction are limited. Cruz and Krausmann (2013) [66••] have highlighted the need to strengthen preparedness and prevention strategies to cope with climate change in the oil and gas sectors. Finally, weather-related Natech risk communication and risk perception have started to contemplate longterm effects on communities' wellness and health [67,68], public trust in governments [69], and risk perception issues of neighboring communities to industrial facilities [70,71]. This has led to growing interest in socioeconomic and long-term health effects of Natechs. Lightning as a relevant cause of industrial accidents has received increasing attention since 2013 due to a higher frequency of occurrence potentially related to the escalation of hydrometeorological events. The research focus has been centered on analyzing the accidental dynamics of previous events [8,72,73]. Despite the use of lightning rods for protection of storage tanks containing flammable substances, lightning accidents are

2.3. Multi-hazard and cross-cutting issues Multi-hazard and crosscutting research contributions have been made from different perspectives. Starting from accident analysis and return of experiences, several studies have analyzed previous accidental events with the aim of identifying frequencies, trends, and impacts on industry, communities, the environment and other infrastructure [6,9,10,14,98– 102]. The ample contributions on accident analysis and return of experiences have supported the estimation of conditional probabilities of Natech events in the United states for different natural hazards [103]. Furthermore, these types of analysis have provided insight concerning structural vulnerability of industrial facilities by identifying critical process equipment, frequency of occurrence of a variety of Natech scenarios [104–107], and the modeling of domino effects [1•,108]. Furthermore, several studies have looked at stakeholder participation for effective Natech risk management strategies and Natech resilience [109,110••,111]. In terms of risk reduction, efforts have been made to consider risk assessment results for land-use planning [112,113]; and to enhance preparedness strategies to improve communities' and businesses' response capacities [114–116]. Some new research topics have emerged in recent years. Di Franco and Salvatori (2015) have proposed the use of remote sensing tools for rapid damage assessment following Natech accidents [117]. Research efforts following the Fukushima nuclear accident have looked at the long-term effects of the accident on people's behavior and health. Studies have addressed psychological issues, stress responses, and mental and behavioral consequences of the nuclear accident [118–122]. Furthermore, aspects such as occupational health of employees, and mental and physical health of evacuees have been studied [123,124]. The lessons from Fukushima will be important to better prepare for any future Natechs with long-term environmental and health related effects. The above studies have pointed out the need for resilient industries and communities to Natech hazards. Reniers et al. [110••] proposed five core areas that need to be improved for building resilient industrial parks. 3

A.M. Cruz, M.C. Suarez-Paba /

Progress in Disaster Science 1 (2019) 100013

Research contributions to Natech risk communication and risk perception have been fewer in number. Emphasis has been directed to households' perception of risk, and public trust in governments. However, approaches emphasizing community participation in risk management decisions are required. In this sense, the challenge for Natech risk communication is to go beyond the mere practice of sharing information regarding potential chemical accident hazards, to creating communication channels among all stakeholders in order to develop community-based approaches which encourage risk-informed decision making. This then should be supported by research addressing contextual factors that consider the public's perception of risk, and the kind of information they aspire to receive [126]. The above gaps and challenges, makes it urgent to address the issue of Natech resilient industries and communities.

These include i) education regarding Natechs, ii) Natech consequence assessment, iii) the need to solve problems related to uncertainty and lack of historical data for estimating the likelihood and frequency of Natech events, iv) the introduction of inherently safer design techniques for facilities located in natural hazard-prone areas, and v) the implementation of land-use controls and planning to reduce exposure. Altogether, these represent fundamental challenges that should be overcome in order to create resilient industries for natural hazards.

3. Natech research gaps and challenges Natech research has experienced a shift from geological to hydrometeorological hazard related research. This is potentially related to climate change concerns, but also in response to the increased number of hydrometeorological disasters and related Natech accidents. This increased awareness has resulted in a rising number of publications focused on Natechs related to floods, hurricanes, and other weather-related hazards. This tendency will likely continue due to more frequent severe storms, tropical cyclones and heavy precipitation events caused by a changing climate [125]. Improved the understanding of the potential for extreme temperatures to cause Natechs directly, or indirectly through other factors is needed as well as to understand the implications in industrial facilities' safety. Moreover, this paper has shown that there is growing interest in recent years in multi-hazard and cross-cutting issues. These trends are represented in Fig. 1, in which the evolution of Natech research shows how the approaches have been changing with time. These results have been adapted from Suarez-Paba et al. (2019). Earthquake-related Natech research has continued, but there is now increasing interest in multi-hazard and crosscutting issues and hydrometeorological hazards related Natech research as well. The results from Fig. 1. are only considering publications until March 2018, thus the final output might be slightly different, favoring hydrometeorological approaches. Research regarding Natech risk treatment and risk reduction has centered around the improvement of structural prevention and mitigation measures within the industrial facility's fence-line. Although, there is heightened interest by the international community, and some countries have introduced regulations that specifically require the analysis of Natechs hazards, a study by OECD in 2017, showed that overall, there is low implementation of Natech specific risk reduction measures in member states. Some studies have provided insights regarding the problems that may arise in responding to Natech accidents both onsite and offsite. However, new proactive approaches with a broader scope will support better Natech risk management. This idea has also been discussed by other researchers who assure that in order to make improvements in Natech safety for the chemical industry “we need to think outside the box” [110••]. Therefore, by conducting research that brings in knowledge and methods from different disciplines, new points of view and approaches will support a clearer understanding of Natechs and improved ways to manage the challenges they entail.

4. Conclusions This paper has shown that Natech research has evolved from a focus on earthquake related accidents to hydrometeorological hazards particularly in the last decade. Perhaps climate change has influenced this trend due to increased hydrometeorological related Natechs, and this trend is likely to continue as climate change may result in a higher number of Natech events. Identified gaps highlight the need to conduct further studies concerning landslides and extreme temperatures, especially referring to their potential impacts on oil and gas transportation pipelines. In addition, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and lighting also require further developments. Multi-hazard and crosscutting issues have also received increasing attention, especially in the last ten years. The ever-growing need to deal with Natech complexity has brought up to the scene the importance of addressing Natechs from interdisciplinary perspectives and has also welcomed the implementation of innovative ideas to find alternative solutions for reducing Natech risk. Moreover, the increasing severity of Natech consequences has stimulated the interest of researchers in analyzing the long-term effects of these types of accidents and their implications for people's health and wellbeing. Therefore, contributions on these topics will be fundamental for enhancing the understanding of Natechs' impacts. Overall, the study found that research contributions in this field have resulted in improved Natech assessment and management. Future efforts are required for strengthening risk treatment and risk reduction, better understanding of risk perception, and promoting risk communication strategies. This could also be supported by building on Natech education in order to contribute to a general awareness of Natech risk. A better understanding of Natech risks would contribute not only to promoting resilient industries but also more resilient societies. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [Kaken Grant 17K01336, April 2017- March 2020]; and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan [MEXT scholarship, 2016-2019].

110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

References and recommended reading•,••

1980-1990

1991-2000

2001-2010

[1] Cozzani V, Antonioni G, Landucci G, Tugnoli A, Bonvicini S, Spadoni G. Quantitative as• sessment of domino and NaTech scenarios in complex industrial areas. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2014/04/11/;28(Supplement C):10–22 2014. The research represents an important contribution because it proposes a methodology for quantitative risk assessment that can capture the contribution of Natech scenarios to industrial risk, and support risk management and land use planning decision making by contemplating potential domino scenarios. [2] Krausmann E, Cruz AM, Salzano E. Natech risk assessment and management: reducing •• the risk of natural-hazard impact on hazardous installations. Elsevier; 2017. This book is of great contribution because it is the first of its kind addressing Natech risk assessment and management issues. It presents a complete picture of the lessons learned of previous Natech events, describes the different methods for Natech risk assessment and its

2011-2018

Earthquake

Other geological hazards

Mulhazard and crosscung

Hydrometeorological hazards • ••

Fig. 1. Natech research progress in time. 4

Of special interest. Of outstanding interest.

A.M. Cruz, M.C. Suarez-Paba /

[3] [4]

[5] •

[6]

[7]

[8] [9] [10]

[11]

[12]

[13] [14] [15] [16]

[17] ••

[18]

[19] [20] [21]

[22]

[23] [24]

[25]

[26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

[31]

[32]

Progress in Disaster Science 1 (2019) 100013 [33] Lindell MK, Perry RW. Hazardous materials releases in the Northridge earthquake: Implications for seismic risk assessment. Risk Anal 1997;Article vol. 17(2):147–56. [34] Kiremidjian A, Ortiz K, Nielsen R. Seismic risk to major industrial facilities. The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center; 1985. [35] Campedel M, Cozzani V, Garcia-Agreda A, Salzano E. Extending the quantitative assessment of industrial risks to earthquake effects. Risk Anal 2008;Article vol. 28 (5):1231–46. [36] Fabbrocino G, Iervolino I, Orlando F, Salzano E. Quantitative risk analysis of oil storage facilities in seismic areas. J Hazard Mater 2005/08/31/;123(1):61–9 2005. [37] Gheorghiu AD, Török Z, Ozunu A, Antonioni G, Cozzani V. Comparative analysis of technological and Uatech risk for two petroleum product tanks located in seismic area. Environ Eng Manag J 2014;Article vol. 13(8):1887–92. [38] Girgin S, Krausmann E. RAPID-N: rapid natech risk assessment and mapping framework. • J Loss Prev Process Ind 2013;Article vol. 26(6):949–60. The study has developed an open access online probabilistic rapid local and regional Natech risk assessment and mapping framework that supports the identification of Natech prone areas. The framework is useful because it can support decision making for emergency response and land use planning. [39] Salzano E, Iervolino I, Fabbrocino G. Seismic risk of atmospheric storage tanks in the framework of quantitative risk analysis. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2003/09/01/;16(5): 403–9 2003. [40] Antonioni G, Spadoni G, Cozzani V. A methodology for the quantitative risk assessment •• of major accidents triggered by seismic events. J Hazard Mater 2007/08/17/;147(1): 48–59 2007. This methodology constitutes an important contribution to the Natech risk assessment field because it was the first methodology to quantitatively address earthquakes -triggered Natech events. It considers the expected frequencies and the severity of seismic events and identifies critical process equipment storing/handling hazardous materials that could generate accidental releases. This methodology remains in force until now and based on it, modifications have been proposed to assess other Natech scenarios. [41] Cruz AM, Okada N. Methodology for preliminary assessment of Natech risk in urban areas. Nat Hazards 2008/08/01;46(2):199–220 2008. [42] Busini V, Marzo E, Callioni A, Rota R. Definition of a short-cut methodology for assessing earthquake-related Na-Tech risk. J Hazard Mater 2011;Article vol. 192(1):329–39. [43] Lindell MK, Perry RW. Addressing gaps in environmental emergency planning: hazardous materials releases during earthquakes. J Environ Plan Manag 1996;39(4):529–43. [44] Steinberg Laura J, Basolo V, Burby R, Levine Joyce N, Maria Cruz A. Joint seismic and technological disasters: possible impacts and community preparedness in an urban setting. Nat Hazards Rev 2004/11/01;5(4):159–69 2004. [45] Mori K, et al. Continuous improvement of fitness-for-duty management programs for workers engaging in stabilizing and decommissioning work at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. J Occup Health 2018;60(2):196–201. [46] Menoni S. Chains of damages and failures in a metropolitan environment: some observations on the Kobe earthquake in 1995. J Hazard Mater 2001;Article vol. 86(1–3): 101–19. [47] El-Anwar O, El-Rayes K, Elnashai A. Maximizing temporary housing safety after natural disasters. J Infrastruct Syst 2010;Article vol. 16(2):138–48 [Art no. 002002qis]. [48] Braga F, et al. Speedup of post earthquake community recovery: the case of precast industrial buildings after the Emilia 2012 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 2014/10/01;12 (5):2405–18 2014. [49] Yu J, Cruz AM, Hokugo A. Households' risk perception and behavioral responses to Natech accidents. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2017/03/01;8(1):1–15 2017. [50] Yu J, Hokugo A. Understanding household mobilization time during natech accident evacuation. J Disaster Res 2015;Article vol. 10(5):973–80. [51] Milazzo MF, Ancione G, Salzano E, Maschio G. Risks associated with volcanic ash fallout from Mt. Etna with reference to industrial filtration systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2013/ 12/01/;120(Supplement C):106–10 2013. [52] Ancione G, Milazzo MF, Lisi R, Maschio G. Consequences of liquid tank explosions caused by lava flow. Chem Eng Trans 2015;Article vol. 43:2071–6. [53] Milazzo MF, Ancione G, Maschio G. Comparing consequences of different liquid tank explosions triggered by lava inundations. Chem Eng Trans 2016;Article vol. 48: 895–900. [54] Cruz AM, Krausmann E, Franchello G. Analysis of tsunami impact scenarios at an oil refinery. Nat Hazards 2011/07/01;58(1):141–62 2011. [55] Basco A, Ernesto S. The vulnerability of industrial equipment to tsunami. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2017;50(Part B):301–7. [56] Araki S, Kunimatsu W, Nishiyama S, Furuse T, Aoki SI, Kotake Y. Experimental study on • tsunami wave load acting on storage tank in coastal area. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2017; Article vol. 50:347–54. Given the scant number of studies focused on tsunami impacts on industrial facilities, this study constitues an important contribution to the field of Natechs. The research evaluates tsunami wave loads impacts on storage tanks under different configurations and can be considered as a first step on Tsunami-triggered quantitative Natech risk assessment. [57] Cruz AM, Munoz F, Aliperti G, Suarez MC. Workshop on tools for Natech risk management. Kyoto, Japan: Kyoto University, Disaster Prevention Research Institute; 2017. [58] Nishino T, Imazu Y. A computational model for large-scale oil spill fires on water in tsu• namis: simulation of oil spill fires at Kesennuma Bay in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2018/07/01/;54:37–48 2018. The study analyses the oil spills and fires spread during the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami and proposes a model that can accurately predict the behaviour of the spilled material due to tsunamis. Hence this study represents an outstanding contribution on the understanding and modeling of such scenarios. [59] Tar T, Kato N, Suzuki H. Development of biologically inspired flexible pipes for tsunami attenuation. Mar Technol Soc J 2017;51(5):116–36. [60] NHK Japan, “NHK special-mega crisis II 1st collection,” in 第1集「都市直下地震」 Part 1 “Earthquake directly under the city”, ed.: NHK, 2017, p. 21:00.

specificities, and discusses on the global status of Natech risk management. It is a must read material that gives the reader a clear idea of Natechs. Cruz AM, Krausmann E. Damage to offshore oil and gas facilities following hurricanes Katrina and Rita: an overview. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2008;Article vol. 21(6):620–6. Krausmann E, Cruz AM, Affeltranger B. The impact of the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake on industrial facilities. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2010/03/01/;23(2): 242–8 2010. Krausmann E, Cruz AM. Impact of the 11 March 2011, Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami on the chemical industry. Nat Hazards 2013;67:811–28. This paper analyses the impacts and damages triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. The study identifies the reasons for the industrial damage and downtime, and discusses the impact of hazmat releases on society. From the lessons leraned of this accident, the authors identified Natech risk management gaps. A. M. Cruz, L. J. Steinberg, A. L. Vetere Arellano, J.-P. Nordvik, and F. Pisano, “State of the art in Natech risk management,” ed. Italy: European Commission-JRC, United Nations-ISDR 2004, pp. 1–66. Lindell MK, Perry RW. Identifying and managing conjoint threats: earthquake-induced hazardous materials releases in the US. J Hazard Mater 1996/09/01/;50(1):31–46 1996. Rasmussen K. Natural events and accidents with hazardous materials. J Hazard Mater 1995/01/01/;40(1):43–54 1995. Sengul H, Santella N, Steinberg L, Cruz A. Analysis of hazardous material releases due to natural hazards in the United States. Disasters 2012;36(4):723–43. Showalter PS, Myers MF. Natural disasters in the United States as release agents of oil, chemicals, or radiological materials between 1980-1989: analysis and recommendations. Risk Anal 1994;14(2):169–82. OECD. Addendum number 2 to the OECD guiding principles for chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response (2nd Ed.) to address natural hazards triggering technological accidents (NaTechs). Series on Chemical Accidents, vol. 27. Paris: OECD; 2015. OECD. (2003, 5/24/2018). Guiding principles for chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response [Online]. Available: http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/chemicalaccidents/guiding-principles-chemical-accident-prevention-preparedness-and-response. htm. UNISDR. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction [Online]. Available: https://www. unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework; 2015, 12-20. Young S, Balluz L, Malilay J. Natural and technologic hazardous material releases during and after natural disasters: a review. Sci Total Environ 2004/04/25/;322(1):3–20 2004. Steinberg LJ, Sengul H, Cruz AM. Natech risk and management: an assessment of the state of the art. Nat Hazards 2008/08/01;46(2):143–52 2008. Da Silva Nascimento KR, Alencar MH. Management of risks in natural disasters: A systematic review of the literature on NATECH events. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2016/11/ 01/;44:347–59 2016. Suarez-Paba MC, Perreur M, Munoz F, Cruz AM. Systematic literature review and qualitative meta-analysis of Natech research in the past four decades. Saf Sci 2019;Under review. This study presents an analysis of the recent history and current state of the art of Natech risk management. A systematic literature review and qualitative meta-analysis is carried out in order to classify the contributions, identify gaps and needs, highlight emerging research areas and propose a way forward for the development of new research on Natech. Protecting infrastructure. In: Cruz AM, Kelman I, Wisner B, Gaillard JC, editors. Routledge handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction. London: Routledge Publisher; 2012. p. 875. Amended building standard law. Japan External Trade Organization; 2005. California building code. California Building Standards Commission; 2016. Lindell MK, Perry RW. Earthquake impacts and hazard adjustment by acutely hazardous materials facilities following the Northridge earthquake. Earthq Spectra 1998/05/01;14 (2):285–99 1998. U.S. Geological Survey. The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake of October 17, 1989fire, police, transportation, and hazardous materials. “Societal response,” Washington D.C.; 1994. Steinberg LJ, Cruz AM. When natural and technological disasters collide: lessons from the Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999. Nat Hazards Rev 2004;5(3):121–30. Girgin S. The natech events during the 17 August 1999 Kocaeli earthquake: aftermath and lessons learned. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 2011;Article vol. 11 (4):1129–40. Cruz AM, Steinberg LJ. Industry preparedness for earthquakes and earthquake-triggered Hazmat accidents in the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. Earthq Spectra 2005/05/01;21(2): 285–303 2005. EERI. The Izmit (Kocaeli), Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999. EERI special earthquake report-learning from earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; 1999. EQE. “Izmit, Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999 (M7.4). An EQE briefing. ,” Oakland, CA; 1999. Zareian F, et al. Reconnaissance report of Chilean Industrial Facilities affected by the 2010 Chile offshore bío-bío earthquake. Earthq Spectra 2012/06/01;28(S1):S513–32 2012. Okada N, Tao Y, Yoshio K, Peijun S, Tatano H. The 2011 Eastern Japan great earthquake disaster: overview and comments. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2011;2(1):34–42. T. Ohnishi, “The disaster at Japan's Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant after the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami, and the resulting spread of radioisotope contamination,” Radiation Research, vol. 177, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2012/01/012011. Watanabe N, Yonomoto T, Tamaki H, Nakamura T, Maruyama Y. Review of five investigation committees' reports on the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant severe accident: focusing on accident progression and causes1. J Nucl Sci Technol 2015/01/02;52 (1):41–56 2015. Chakraborty A, Ibrahim A, Cruz AM. A study of accident investigation methodologies applied to the Natech events during the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2018/01/01/;51:208–22 2018.

5

A.M. Cruz, M.C. Suarez-Paba /

Progress in Disaster Science 1 (2019) 100013 storage tanks. This useful methodology can be extended to assess different kinds of process vessels. [88] Khakzad N, Van Gelder P. Vulnerability of industrial plants to flood-induced natechs: a Bayesian network approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2018;Article vol. 169:403–11. [89] Soto D, Renard F. New prospects for the spatialisation of technological risks by combining hazard and the vulnerability of assets. Nat Hazards 2015;Article vol. 79(3):1531–48. [90] Fendler R. Floods and safety of establishments and installations containing hazardous substances. Nat Hazards 2008;Conference Paper vol. 46(2):257–63. [91] Hartmann J, Okada N, Levy JK. Integrated disaster risk management strategy to prevent exposure to hazardous substances due to inundation triggered releases: a concept for Japan. J Nat Dis Sci 2004;26(2):87–93. [92] Xavier JCM, de Sousa Junior WC. Recognising na-tech events in Brazil: moving forward. Nat Hazards 2016;Article vol. 82(1):493–506. [93] Krausmann E, Mushtaq F. A qualitative Natech damage scale for the impact of floods on selected industrial facilities. Nat Hazards 2008/08/01;46(2):179–97 2008. [94] Menoni S, Molinari D, Parker D, Ballio F, Tapsell S. Assessing multifaceted vulnerability and resilience in order to design risk-mitigation strategies. Nat Hazards 2012;Article vol. 64(3):2057–82. [95] Liu T, Zhang H, Li X, Li H. Effects of organization factors on flood-related Natechs in urban areas of China. Nat Hazards 2017;Article vol. 88(1):355–65. [96] Girgin S, Krausmann E. Analysis of pipeline accidents induced by natural hazards: final report. Joint Research Center; 2014. [97] Makhutov NA, Bolshakov AM, Zakharova MI. Possible scenarios of accidents in reservoirs and pipelines at low operating temperature. Inorg Mater 2016/12/01;52(15): 1498–502 2016. [98] Ruckart PZ, Borders J, Villanacci J, Harris R, Samples-Ruiz M. The role of adverse weather conditions in acute releases of hazardous substances, Texas, 2000-2001. J Hazard Mater 2004;Conference Paper vol. 115(1-3 SPEC. ISS):27–31. [99] Campedel M. Analysis of major industrial accidents triggered by natural events reported in the principal available chemical accident databases. Luxembourg: Joint Research Center; 2008 [ISSN 1018–5593]. [100] Petrova E. Natural hazards and technological risk in Russia: the relation assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2005;Article vol. 5(4):459–64. [101] Kumasaki M, Hara T, Nakajima N, Wada Y, Makino R. The classification of physical effects from natural hazards for Natech risk assessment based on a Japanese database. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2017/11/01/;50:308–16 2017. [102] Kirchsteiger C. Trends in accidents, disasters and risk sources in Europe. J Loss Prev Process Ind 1999/01/01/;12(1):7–17 1999. [103] Santella N, Steinberg LJ, Aguirra GA. Empirical estimation of the conditional probabil• ity of Natech events within the United States. Risk Anal 2011;Article vol. 31(6): 951–68. This study has estimated the conditional probabilities of natech occurrence induced by hurricanes, floods, earthquakes and tornadoes at industrial facilities in the U.S. handling petroleum and hazardous materials. The estimation of Natech probabilities, combined with the probability and severity of natural hazards can serve to predict the likelihood of Natech events at a regional scale. [104] Petrova E. Critical infrastructure in Russia: geographical analysis of accidents triggered by natural hazards. Environ Eng Manag J 2011;10(1):53–8. [105] Krausmann E, Renni E, Campedel M, Cozzani V. Industrial accidents triggered by earthquakes, floods and lightning: lessons learned from a database analysis. Nat Hazards 2011/10/01;59(1):285–300 2011. [106] Ozunu A, Senzaconi F, Botezan C, Ştefǎnescu L, Nour E, Balcu C. Investigations on natural hazards which trigger technological disasters in Romania. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2011;Article vol. 11(5):1319–25. [107] Girgin S, Krausmann E. Historical analysis of U.S. onshore hazardous liquid pipeline accidents triggered by natural hazards. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2016/03/01/;40:578–90 2016. [108] Kadri F, Birregah B, Châtelet E. The impact of natural disasters on critical infrastructures: a domino effect-based study. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 2014;Article vol. 11(2):217–41. [109] Salzano E, et al. Public awareness promoting new or emerging risks: industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards (NaTech). J Risk Res 2013;Article vol. 16(3–4): 469–85. [110] Reniers G, Khakzad N, Cozzani V, Khan F. The impact of nature on chemical industrial •• facilities: dealing with challenges for creating resilient chemical industrial parks. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2018/11/01/;56:378–85 2018. This paper presents a conceptual framework to support industrial facilities on their search for resiliency to naturerelated disasters. Thus it is an important contribution since it opens the debate on which are the needs and challenges of Natech safety that need to be overcome and how to address them. [111] Wei Y-M, Wang K, Wang Z-H, Tatano H. Vulnerability of infrastructure to natural hazards and climate change in China. Nat Hazards 2015;75(2):107–10 2015. [112] Galderisi A, Ceudech A, Pistucci M. A method for na-tech risk assessment as supporting tool for land use planning mitigation strategies. Nat Hazards 2008/08/01;46(2): 221–41 2008. [113] Pilone E, Demichela M, Camuncoli G. Seveso directives and LUP: the mutual influence of natural and anthropic impacts. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2017/09/01/;49:94–102 2017. [114] Quarantelli EL, Lawrence C, Tierney K, Johnson T. Initial findings from a study of sociobehavioral preparations and planning for acute chemical hazard disasters. J Hazard Mater 1979;Article vol. 3(1):77–90. [115] Dahlhamer JM, D'Souza MJ. Determinants of business-disaster preparedness in two U.S. Metropolitan areas. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 1997;15(2):265–81. [116] Santella N, Steinberg LJ. Accidental releases of hazardous materials and relevance to terrorist threats at industrial facilities. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 2011;8(1):53. [117] Di Franco S, Salvatori R. Current situation and needs in man-made and natech risks management using Earth observation techniques. Remote Sens Appl Soc Environ 2015/07/01/;1:72–84 2015.

[61] Alvarado-Franco JP, et al. Quantitative-mechanistic model for assessing landslide probability and pipeline failure probability due to landslides. Eng Geol 2017/05/18/;222: 212–24 2017. [62] Ruckart PZ, Orr MF, Lanier K, Koehler A. Hazardous substances releases associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in industrial settings, Louisiana and Texas. J Hazard Mater 2008;Article vol. 159(1):53–7. [63] Santella N, Steinberg LJ, Sengul H. Petroleum and hazardous material releases from industrial facilities associated with hurricane katrina. Risk Anal 2010;Article vol. 30(4): 635–49. [64] Cruz AM, Krausmann E. Hazardous-materials releases from offshore oil and gas facilities and emergency response following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2009;22:59–65. [65] Cruz AM, Steinberg LJ, Luna R. Identifying hurricane-induced hazardous material release scenarios in a petroleum refinery. Nat Hazards Rev 2001;Article vol. 2(4):203–10. [66] Cruz AM, Krausmann E. Vulnerability of the oil and gas sector to climate change and ex•• treme weather events. Clim Change 2013;Article vol. 121(1):41–53. The increasing awareness on the impacts of weather-related events to industrial facilities has highlighted the need to understand industry's vulnerability to climate change and to propose risk reduction measures. This study does so by presenting the challenges faced by the oil and gas sectors located in coastal areas and areas exposed to extreme weather events. [67] Steven Picou J. Katrina as a natech disaster toxic contamination and long-term risks for residents of new orleans. J Appl Soc Sci 2009;Article vol. 3(2):39–55. [68] Harvey DC. The discourse of the ecological precariat: making sense of social disruption in the lower ninth ward in the long-term aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Sociol Forum 2016;31(S1):862–84. [69] Miller DS. Public trust in the aftermath of natural and na-technological disasters: Hurricane Katrina and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear incident. Int J Sociol Soc Policy 2016; Article vol. 36(5–6):410–31. [70] Meyler D, Stimpson JP, Cutchin MP. Landscapes of risk: Texas City and the petrochemical industry. Organ Environ 2007;Article vol. 20(2):204–12. [71] Lindell MK, Hwang SN. Households' perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Anal 2008;Article vol. 28(2):539–56. [72] Chang JI, Lin C-C. A study of storage tank accidents. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2006/01/ 01/;19(1):51–9 2006. [73] Renni E, Krausmann E, Cozzani V. Industrial accidents triggered by lightning. J Hazard Mater 2010/12/15/;184(1):42–8 2010. [74] Necci A, Antonioni G, Bonvicini S, Cozzani V. Quantitative assessment of risk due to • major accidents triggered by lightning. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016/10/01/;154:60–72 2016. This study is a valuable development because it proposes a quantitative methodology to assess the probability of Natech risk induced by lightning. Furthermore, the study comprises a first step toward lightning risk reduction strategies at industrial facilities handling flammable materials. [75] Necci A, Antonioni G, Cozzani V, Krausmann E, Borghetti A, Alberto Nucci C. A model for process equipment damage probability assessment due to lightning. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2013/07/01/;115(Supplement C):91–9 2013. [76] Necci A, Argenti F, Landucci G, Cozzani V. Accident scenarios triggered by lightning strike on atmospheric storage tanks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2014/07/01/;127:30–46 2014. [77] Necci A, Antonioni G, Cozzani V, Krausmann E, Borghetti A, Nucci CA. Assessment of lightning impact frequency for process equipment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2014/10/01/; 130(Supplement C):95–105 2014. [78] Necci A, Antonioni G, Cozzani V, Borghetti A, Nucci CA. Quantification of risk reduction due to the installation of different lightning protection solutions for large atmospheric storage tanks. Chem Eng Trans 2014;Article vol. 36:481–6. [79] Yang Y, Chen G, Chen P. The probability prediction method of domino effect triggered by lightning in chemical tank farm. Process Saf Environ Prot 2018/05/01/;116: 106–14 2018. [80] Cozzani V, Campedel M, Renni E, Krausmann E. Industrial accidents triggered by flood events: analysis of past accidents. J Hazard Mater 2010;Article vol. 175(1– 3):501–9. [81] El Hajj C, Piatyszek E, Laforest V. Development of generic scenarios of industrial accidents triggered by floods: a first step toward decreasing the vulnerability of industrial facilities. WIT Transactions on Information and Communication Technologies, 44. ; 2012. p. 103–14. [82] El Hajj C, Piatyszek E, Tardy A, Laforest V. Development of generic bow-tie diagrams of accidental scenarios triggered by flooding of industrial facilities (Natech). J Loss Prev Process Ind 2015;Article vol. 36:72–83. [83] Landucci G, Antonioni G, Tugnoli A, Cozzani V. Release of hazardous substances in flood events: damage model for atmospheric storage tanks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2012/10/01/; 106(Supplement C):200–16 2012. [84] Landucci G, Necci A, Antonioni G, Tugnoli A, Cozzani V. Release of hazardous substances in flood events: damage model for horizontal cylindrical vessels. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2014/12/01/;132(Supplement C):125–45 2014. [85] Landucci G, Necci A, Tugnoli A, Antonioni G, Cozzani V. NaTech scenarios caused by flooding: evaluation of accident frequency by the use of fragility models. Chem Eng Trans 2014;Article vol. 36:427–32. [86] Antonioni G, Landucci G, Necci A, Gheorghiu D, Cozzani V. Quantitative assessment of •• risk due to NaTech scenarios caused by floods. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2015/10/01/;142: 334–45 2015. This paper proposes a quantitative methodology that assesses the vulnerability of process equipment to floods. It allows the estimation of failure probabilities of hazardous material storage equipment and therefore the potential releases due to flooding. [87] Khakzad N, Van Gelder P. Fragility assessment of chemical storage tanks subject to • floods. Process Saf Environ Prot 2017;Article vol. 111:75–84. This study presentes a methodology based on Bayesian networks to assess process vessels vulnerability to floods. Fragility functions are developed for different failure modes on atmospheric

6

A.M. Cruz, M.C. Suarez-Paba /

Progress in Disaster Science 1 (2019) 100013 [123] Mori K, et al. “How occupational health can contribute in a disaster and what we should prepare for the future–lessons learned through support activities of a medical school at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Summer 2011,” (in eng). J Occup Health 2013;55(1):6–10. [124] Ohto H, Yasumura S, Maeda M, Kainuma H, Fujimori K, Nollet KE. From devastation to recovery and revival in the aftermath of Fukushima's nuclear power plants accident. Asia Pac J Public Health 2017/03/01;29(2_suppl):10S–7S 2017. [125] Wuebbles DJ. Setting the stage for risk management: severe weather under a changing climate. In: Gardoni P, Murphy C, Rowell A, editors. Risk analysis of natural hazards: interdisciplinary challenges and integrated solutions. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 61–80. [126] Figueroa PM. Risk communication surrounding the Fukushima nuclear disaster: an anthropological approach. Asia Europe J 2013/03/01;11(1):53–64 2013.

[118] Bertazzi PA. Future prevention and handling of environmental accidents. Scand J Work Environ Health 1999;25(6). [119] Silva PD. Post-traumatic stress disorder: cross-cultural aspects. Int Rev Psychiatry 1993/01/01;5(2-3):217–29 1993. [120] Mercuri A, Angelique HL. Children's responses to natural, technological, and Na-Tech disasters. Community Ment Health J 2004/04/01;40(2):167–75 2004. [121] Shigemura J, Tanigawa T, Nishi D, Matsuoka Y, Nomura S, Yoshino A. Associations between disaster exposures, peritraumatic distress, and posttraumatic stress responses in Fukushima nuclear plant workers following the 2011 nuclear accident: the Fukushima NEWS project study. PLoS One 2014;Article vol. 9(2):e87516. [122] Takahashi S, Shigemura J, Takahashi Y, Nomura S, Yoshino A, Tanigawa T. Perceived workplace interpersonal support among workers of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants following the 2011 accident: the Fukushima Nuclear Energy Workers' Support (NEWS) project study. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2017:1–4.

7