600977012
A Summary of
Accidents
Related to
Non-Nuclear Energy
                United States Environmental Protection Agency
                    Office of Research and Development
                   Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry

                              May 1977
         LIBRARY     —'
         U, S. ENvL- .. . - PRQiECliON AGENCY
            N. J.

-------
                            Foreword
  This report is based on a study of Accidents and Unscheduled Events Associated
with Non-Nuclear Energy Resources and Technology. The study was sponsored by
the Environmental Protection Agency under the guidance of Dr. Stephen J. Gage,
Deputy Assistant  Administrator of  the Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry.
The study was performed in support of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative
Energy Systems of the National Academy of  Sciences. The Committee is studying
the energy future  of the United States from 1980 to 2010 for the Energy Research
and Development Administration.
  The Purpose of the study is to assist the American people and the legislative and
executive branches of government in formulation of an energy policy, by pointing
out the nature of the choices the nation may wish to keep available in the future and
by listing the actions and research and development programs that may be required
to do so.

-------
                   Table of Contents
                                                         Page
INTRODUCTION                                                I
COAL                                                       2
CRUDE OIL                                                   3
NATURAL GAS AND LNG                                          5
HYDROELECTRIC AND OTHER ELECTRIC POWER                          7
DEVELOPING ENERGY SYSTEMS                                     9
ADVERSE NATURAL AND OTHER INCIDENTS                            11

-------
                                                                                                              UPI PI
Norwegian f ireboat pours water on oil platform to contain a 4,000 ton-a-day oil spill in the North Sea. April, 1977 (UPI)

-------
Introduction
   At present, various means of reducing U.S. depend-
ence on foreign energy sources have been investigated in
the United States. Most of the discussion has concerned
availability of various energy resources, availability and
cost of technology, and environmental effects.
   Among  those  systems which  have received  much
attention is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy could supply
a significant part of the nation's electrical energy needs.
Safety concerns, however, have proven to  be a  major
impediment to the development of nuclear energy.
   In  order to choose intelligently  among  the energy
alternatives available, the safety  of using non-nuclear
energy resources must be considered.  Although some
hazards such  as oil spills and coal  mine explosions have
received significant  attention from the public and the
regulatory agencies, no comprehensive assessment similar
to that performed  for nuclear energy exists concerning
the safety of developing non-nuclear resources.
   The first step in  the  assessment of the hazards  of
non-nuclear systems is a compilation of existing accident
data.  A  report  entitled  Accidents  and Unscheduled
Events Associated with Non-Nuclear Energy Resources
and Technology,1 has been prepared in an effort to sum-
marize available information  on this subject. This paper
summarizes the findings of that report.  Numbers in par-
entheses refer to sections  and pages in reference 1. Acci-
dents  or unscheduled events, whether natural or human-
made,  are considered. However, emphasis is placed on
major accidents or minor accidents  which have a cumula-
tive major effect.
   The availability of accident data for analysis is greater
for well developed  technologies such as oil, natural gas,
and coal  than for  those systems in  the developmental
                                      stage. Nevertheless, similarities between developing tech-
                                      nologies and  existing technologies  and  risk analysis
                                      studies  provide a basis for comparison. Energy systems
                                      considered are  coal, crude oil, natural gas, liquified na-
                                      tural gas (LNG), hydroelectric, oil shale, geothermal, and
                                      solar. Accidents in each energy cycle element (explora-
                                      tion, extraction,  processing,  transportation  including
                                      transmission and distribution, and end use technologies)
                                      are considered. Excluded  from consideration in this  re-
                                      port  are environmental  effects or threats  to  human
                                      health,  safety, or property resulting from normal opera-
                                      tions. Impacts of normal operations such as instances of
                                      black lung disease in the coal mining industry must, of
                                      course,. be  considered in  choosing  among available
                                      energy development options.
                                         There are two major factors which make comparison
                                      of the accident  potential of energy systems difficult. The
                                      first factor is the difference in the  bases among systems
                                      from which accident predictions are  made.  Historical
                                      data provide the basis for established  systems but for
                                      newly developing  systems risk analyses and modelling
                                      must be performed to arrive at accident predictions. The
                                      second  factor is the lack  of a consistent system of  re-
                                      porting accidents.  However, based  on the best available
                                      estimate, there  are probably a significantly greater num-
                                      ber  of  deaths and injuries associated with the coal  re-
                                      source  system  per megawatt delivered than  with the
                                      crude oil or natural gas system.  The annual deaths and
                                      injuries associated  with coal, oil,  and gas fired electricity
                                      systems for a 1000 megawatt power plant  are shown in
                                      Table I. Fatalities and injuries associated with the coal
                                      industry are an order of magnitude greater than those
                                      associated with  the oil and natural gas industries.
                                                TABLE 1
                   ANNUAL DEATHS AND INJURIES BY ENERGY SOURCE FOR
                A 1000 MEGAWATT POWER PLANT WITH A LOAD FACTOR OF 0.75
                                           (PER UNIT ENERGY)
   Fatalities
   Injuries
                        COAL
                                         CRUDE OIL
DEEP

  4.00
112.30
SURFACE

  2.64
41.20
ONSHORE

    0.35
   32.30
OFFSHORE

    0.35
   32.30
                                                             NATURAL GAS
IMPORT

   0.06
   5.70
TOTAL

   0.20
  18.30

-------
Coal
    Summary
    Underground coal mining is more dangerous than
    surface mining with an injury frequency rate four
    times greater than surface coal mining.
    Most people would identify fires and explosions
    as the most severe mining disasters. This is largely
    due to the sensational nature of such events and
    extensive news media coverage. In fact, fires and
    explosions account for only 10-12% of the annual
    fatalities.  The majority  of fatalities (50%)  are
    caused by roof, rib, and face falls in underground
    mines.
    In the developing technologies such as coal gasi-
    fication and liquefaction systems, safety aspects
    must be considered in order to make intelligent
    decisions as to which  technologies could most
    safely provide the needed energy.  However, no
    historical data are available for these  new tech-
    nologies and extrapolations of accident rates can
    only be made  from similar existing technologies.
                    TABLE II

      COAL MINING ACCIDENT RATES
                               Disabling Injuries/
                             Million Employee-Hours
Underground Coal Mining
Surface Coal Mining
Overall Industry Average (All
   member companies of National
   Safety Council)
35.0
10.0
 9.8
   Historically, coal mining has been a dangerous occu-
pation. The threat to personal safety depends upon the
extraction technique, location of the mine, the activity
and  location of the miner, experience of the  mining
crew, and equipment used. However, statistics show that
underground coal mining is more hazardous than surface
mining (Sec. 3.2.2, p. 46). National Safety Council data
confirming  this are  presented in  Table  II. The per-
centage and kinds of accidents occurring in coal mining
are presented in Table III.
   Although fires and explosions are often emphasized
by the news media, only  10-12% of the annual mining
fatalities  are attributable to  these causes.  Also, due to
better  safety regulations the number of  miners killed
annually  in mine explosions has been steadily decreasing
(Sec. 3.2.2 p.  58). Roof, rib and face falls account for
the majority of accidents (50%). Surface mining acci-
dents are approximately equally divided among  fall of
highwall,  haulage  truck operations,  front-end  loader
operations,  and  electrical  system  malfunctions.  Re-
cently, there has been increased concern about the dan-
ger presented, by detonation of charges, to the surround-
ing population. These people may experience reverbera-
tions and possible home damage.
   Transportation  accidents  account  for 10-15%  of
mining fatalities.  In underground  mining  operations,
hauling is the  most dangerous function. Although such
accidents are not frequent, they are severe. Coal is trans-
ported to the  consumer via rail, trucks and slurry pipe-
lines.  These three rank  from most to least dangerous in
terms of fatal injuries per 10!2  BTU* equivalent tons
shipped as follows: railroads are  most dangerous at 0.06
followed   by trucks  at 0.032  and  slurry pipeline  at
0.00191 (Sec. 3.2.4 p. 64).
   Remaining accidents involve processing/beneficiation
and  reclamation  operations including subsidence  of
underground mines and collapse or combustion of refuse
piles used as dams (Sec. 3.2.5 p. 66).

*This amount  of energy is equal to that required to run
a 1000 MW power plant for approximately 300 hrs, or to
that needed to heat approximately  5000 homes  for one
season (October through April) in a temperate climate.

                    TABLE III
    TYPES OF COAL MINING ACCIDENTS
                                                       Accident                              Percentage (%)

                                                       Underground (total)                          80
                                                          Roof, rib, and face falls                    50
                                                          Fires and explosions                      10-12
                                                          Transportation (coal haulage)              10-15
                                                       Surface (total)                               20
                                                          (Fall of highwall, equipment
                                                          misoperation, electrical system
                                                          malfunctions)

-------
Crude  Oil
     Summary

     Oil spills are the most frequent accident. Seventy-
     five percent of human-related spills come from
     vessels. However, of the total amount released,
     fifty percent comes from  uncontrollable non-
     point sources.

     The release  of  oil  itself does not constitute an
     immediate  hazard  to human life.  The greatest
     damage  is  to  ecological systems.  This damage
     may not be permanent, and many areas that have
     suffered from an oil spill appear to have recovered
     within three to  four years. However, longer term
     ecological disruptions also have been observed.
     Transportation of oil via tankers accounts for a
     greater number  of fatalities and injuries annually
     than  transportation of oil via pipeline. Pipeline
     accidents number approximately 135 per year,
     and cause approximately one  fatality  and  one
     injury per year. Tanker accidents number approxi-
     mately 640 per  year and cause approximately 75
     fatalities and 35 injuries per year.
Tanker spill rate does not appear to depend upon
size of tanker or age of tanker, but mainly upon
the number of voyages.

The relative merits of developing offshore oil and
gas reserves versus the continued or increased im-
portation of foreign oil and gas depends in part
on safety considerations.  Safety  estimates as to
the importation of oil can be derived from tanker
accident statistics  of  the  past. Without proper
regulation the use of super-tankers may cause an
increase in accident rates. Transportation of off-
shore oil by tanker will probably involve a greater
frequency of spills  than transportation by pipe-
line.  Safety records of offshore production facili-
ties indicate that offshore operations  are safer
than onshore operations. However, the increased
exploration and use of deep-water areas and areas
which are prone to seismic activity and extreme
weather changes may cause an increase  in the
accident rates. Table IV summarizes the accident
data available for the oil industry.2
                    TABLE IV
       OIL INDUSTRY ACCIDENT DATA


Shipping
Blow-outs
Offshore rigs
Pipelines
Refineries

Accidents/
year
636
11
5
135
*
*
Fatalities/
year
76
*
6
1
3
1
Injuries/
year
37
*
*
1
5915
8155
*Unknown
   Contributions of various sources of oil to the oceans
are shown in Table  V.3  Uncontrolled non-point sources
such as runoff and  natural seeps contribute as much as
accidents  within  the oil industry.  Of industry-related
spills, transportation is responsible for more than half.
   Seventy-five percent of oil spills involve vessels. From
1969 through 1973 there were 3,183 shipping accidents.
Three hundred eighty-one fatalities and 178 injuries re-
sulted from  these accidents. Collisions and groundings
accounted for about half of the accidents and 44% of
the outflow. Structural failures accounted for 16% of
the accidents and one third of the outflow. The median
size  of  a  spill was  25,000 bbl. Spills usually  occurred
within 10 miles  offshore and the median duration  of a
spill was seventeen days2 (Sec. 4.2.1 p. 80).

-------
                     TABLE V
      SOURCES OF OIL IN THE OCEANS
SOURCE
  ESTIMATED
CONTRIBUTION
   (TONS/YR)
Transportation
Tankers, Dry Docking,
Terminal Operations,
Bilges, Accidents
Coastal Refineries, Municipal
and Industrial Waste
Offshore Oil Productions
River and Urban Runoff
Atmospheric Fallout
Natural Seeps
TOTAL
2,350,000




875,000
87,500
2,100,000
660,000
660,000
6,732,500
34.9




13.0
1.3
31.2
9.8
9.8
100.0
   Blow-outs and well-casing ruptures are other sources
of oil spills. The National Petroelum Council reported
106  blow-outs  in  drilling  273,000  wells in  the
1960-1970 decade.2 Fires may ensue and uncontrolled
seepage  of oil may continue for several  months after-
wards (Sec. 4.2.1 p. 91).
   Besides causing injury and loss of life to persons in
the vicinity,  oil  spills  (both inland  and  offshore)  also
cause ecological damage. The extent of such damage de-
pends upon the volume, composition and toxicity of oil
spilled, effects of weathering, marine transport, existing
ecosystems, physiography, and clean-up operations em-
ployed.  Effects of a spill on estuarine or marine environ-
ments include immediate death to indigenous organisms
such as  fish, clams, snails, and  crabs, disruption of feed-
ing, reproduction, orientation, and migration  patterns of
marine  organisms, incorporation  of  carcinogenic  com-
pounds  into the  food chain, and alteration of habitat so
as to force relocation of species. Also, large numbers of
sea birds may be killed by  physical coating of feathers.
Potable water, irrigation, and industrial water supplies
may also be threatened. (Sec. 4.2.1.2 p. 92).
   The length of time required for an area to recover
from the effects of an oil spill cannot be specified. Some
believe there are few long term effects; others believe
permanent ecosystem disruption can occur.4  However,
the time for recovery is dependent upon  volume and
kind of oil spilled, meteorological conditions, and clean-
up  measures. A study  of several areas showed that re-
covery was underway 6 months after the oil spill and
nearly  complete 3 years after the oil spill.
   Since 1955 there have been 100 accidents involving
offshore  rigs, each  with   losses  exceeding $500,000.
There were 121 fatalities. Jack up platforms are the type
most susceptible to failure.  Major causes of accidents are
moving of rigs and storms (Sec. 4.2.3 p. 102).
   In  1975,  135  oil  pipeline  accidents  caused approxi-
mately $3.2  million in  property damage, the loss of one
life, one injury, and spillage  of 105,871  barrels of  oil.
Pipeline accidents are  caused by equipment  rupturing
lines, internal and external  corrosion, structural defects,
human operating errors, vandalism, and adverse natural
events  (Sec. 4.2.4 p. 105).
   Refinery  accidents involve  fire  and  explosions.
Sources (API and National Petroleum Refiners Associa-
tion) differ as to  the number of accidents in 1975. One
indicates there  were 5,915  injuries and 3 fatalities. The
other says there were 8,155 injuries and 11 fatalities.
   Hydrorefining  units have  the greatest  potential  for
accidents.  Losses  for  1965-1969  are summarized  in
Table VI.  Of these  units, hydrocrackers have  the worst
accident record.  Since 1970 hydrocracker losses have
averaged more than $1,000,000 per year.
   Secondary  problems associated  with  refinery acci-
dents are oil spills and air pollution problems. Release of
carbon monoxide, sulfur  dioxide, oxides of nitrogen,
hydrocarbons, and particulates may cause illnesses (Sec.
4.2.7 p. 117).
                                                 TABLE VI

                ACCIDENT LOSS SUMMARY FOR VARIOUS PROCESSES, 1965-1969


Process
Catalytic Cracking
Catalytic Reforming
Hydrocracking
Crude/Vacuum Units
Loss Summary
No. of
Accidents
32
59
19
57
1 965- 1 969
Total Amount
of Losses
$3,308,000
3,134,000
6,402,000
1,366,000
Approximate
Average Loss
$103,000
53,000
337,000
24,000

-------
Natural Gas and  LNG
    Summary
    Since natural  gas and oil often  occur  together,
    extraction and processing technologies are simi-
    lar. Therefore, the accidents identified in the oil
    section related to these technologies are the same
    for natural gas.
    More members of the public than employees are
    injured or killed by natural gas pipeline accidents.
    This is because  pipelines transect  residential,
    industrial and commercial areas.
    If natural gas reserves are exhausted in the United
    States, alternative domestic resources  must be
    exploited  or natural gas must  be imported. Im-
    portation of natural gas currently necessitates its
    reduction  to the liquid state.  The transport of
    liquified natural gas (LNG) is a  subject of contro-
    versy and safety aspects in the transportation and
    storage  of LNG  are paramount. Hazards stem
    from its cryogenic nature requiring maintenance
    of extreme temperatures.
    Limited data on LNG transport and storage make
    evaluation of  risk  difficult. Risk analyses  are
    highly  site specific and different models use dif-
    ferent  assumptions. Consequently, estimates of
    risk at specific sites differ by several orders of
    magnitude.
    Since  oil and natural gas  are  frequently found to-
 gether, extraction and processing accidents involving one
 also involve the other. Therefore, the types of accidents
 identified in the oil section related to these technology
 steps are the same for  natural gas.  Blowouts of well-
 heads during the drilling of exploratory and production
 wells, release of sulfur  compounds  during processing,
 and  failures of pipelines due  to  corrosion or outside
 forces comprise the bulk of the accidents occurring from
 this energy source. Table VII  summarizes the  accident
 data available for the natural gas energy system:5
    Pipeline distribution accounted for the greatest num-
 ber of injuries  per 1012  BTUs.5 Accident  rates  for
 offshore  extraction,  gathering, and  processing are an
 order of magnitude lower. Onshore extraction accounted
                        for the greatest number of fatalities per 1012  BTUs.5
                        Drilling operations were responsible for the highest fre-
                        quency of disabling  injuries at 48.93 accidents per mil-
                        lion man hours worked (Sec. 5.2 p. 127).
                           Processing accidents are  those occurring during the
                        separation of oil and gas and the removal of impurities.
                        One  of the greatest  problems is removal of the highly
                        toxic gas hydrogen sulfide. In 1975, gas processing was
                        responsible for 921 injuries and 3 fatalities (Sec. 5.2.3 p.
                        137).
                           Almost all pipeline accidents can be attributed to cor-
                        rosion, damage  by outside forces, construction  defects,
                        or material  failure. The Eighth Annual Report of Pipe-
                        line  Safety summarized gas pipeline accidents  during
                        1975 by distribution  and  transmission  and gathering
                        categories. This is shown in Table VIII.6 With a total  of
                        1,373 failures this amounts to 0.01  fatality per failure
                        and 0.11 injury per failure. Pipeline transportation poses
                        a significant hazard to the general public because pipe-
                        lines  transect residential  and commercial  areas (Sec.
                        5.2.4 p. 137).
Technology

Pipeline distribution
Extraction
   offshore
   onshore
Transmission and gathering
Processing
   natural gas liquid
   hydrogen sulfide
                TABLE VII

  NATURAL GAS ACCIDENT DATA

Fatalities/1012 Btu
     0.000040

     0.000007
     0.000080
     0.000006

     0.000040
     0.000002
Injuries/10lz Btu

     0.0138

     0.0030
     0.0040
     0.0010

     0.0040
     0.0020
Fatalities/year
      16
       6
Injuries/year

     220
      17

     921

-------
                                                TABLE VIM
                               PIPELINE ACCIDENT DATA-1975
Mode

Distribution
Transmission and Gathering

Total
    Non-Employee.
        Injuries

          191
            9

          200
   Liquified natural gas, LNG, is composed primarily of
methane (95%) with small impurities of light  hydro-
carbons. The technology for reducing gaseous methane
to the liquid phase has been known for several decades.
It has been used since the 1940's  for storage purposes.
There are  now  23 liquefaction plants,  49 operational
peak  shaving plants,  and 49 satellite storage facilities in
the United States.
   Recently there has been increased interest in trans-
porting natural gas in this form across the seas. Liquefac-
tion is desirable because liquified methane occupies only
1/600 of its gaseous volume and large quantities can
therefore be transported.  Currently,  there is only  one
functioning LNG terminal in the United States. It is lo-
cated  in Everett,  Massachusetts and  operated by  DIS-
TRIGAS. Several terminals are in the planning and early
approval stages. Alaska, California, the Gulf of Mexico
and Mid Atlantic states are the most likely sites (Sec. 6.1
p. 150).
   There exist no accident data on transport of LNG via
tanker and only four accidents are known to have oc-
curred  at  LNG storage facilities.  Consequently, there
exists an inadequate  data  base  from which to predict
frequency  and severity of  accidents.  Caution generally
has been exercised by those individuals responsible for
approving construction on LNG terminals. This is due in
part to questions concerning the need for  LNG and the
potential for a catastrophic accident.
   The most severe accident occurred in Cleveland, Ohio
in 1944. A large storage tank containing 38,000 barrels
of LNG collapsed because of brittle fracture. A spread-
ing pool fire resulted. The burning pool  flowed into the
surrounding community. The fire and resulting explo-
sions killed 130 people, injured 300, and caused prop-
erty damage of  $10,000,000. The likelihood of an acci-
dent  caused by  brittle fracture recurring it, very low be-
               Non-Employee
                  Fatalities
                     Employee
                      Injuries

                         29
                          8

                         37
                           Employee
                           Fatalities

                               0
                               5
                         cause of the development of materials able to withstand
                         the extreme cold of cryogenic temperatures.
                            Three other accidents involved LNG storage facilities.
                         In February 1973 an empty LNG storage tank on Staten
                         Island exploded and burned.  Forty  workers died. The
                         explosion was attributed to ignition of trapped vapors
                         by  a welder's  torch. In Oregon, a tank exploded during
                         construction before LNG was introduced.  Four workers
                         died.  Investigators  attributed the accident  to careless
                         work  practices. In 1972, gas leaked through an air line to
                         the control room of an LNG  plant in Montreal, Canada.
                         A large fire resulted.
                            Besides  failure  of a  storage tank,  those  accidents
                         which are considered to have the greatest potential for
                         harm  are collisions of tarjkers at sea  where the contents
                         of one or two LNG tanks are released. (The average tank
                         size is 37,500 cu. m.).?  Minor accidents include release
                         of refrigerants, solids blocking the transfer  pipeline, mal-
                         functions onboard tankers, leaks in the transfer system,
                         and maintenance accidents.
                            Since a  sufficient body of historical data  does not
                         exist, risk  analyses have been performed  to determine
                         the probabilities and consequences of accidents involving
                         LNG  terminals. Three studies are presented  which con-
                         sidered  three sites—Los Angeles, Oxnard, and Point Con-
                         ception, California. The  models were developed by the
                         Federal Power Commission (FPC), Science Applications,
                         Inc. (SAI), and the El Paso Alaska Company  (EAC). The
                         differences in  risk estimates are the  results of different
                         assumptions and modelling procedures. These risk esti-
                         mates apply only to the sites for which calculations were
                         made. The risk of fatalities at other sites may be substan-
                         tially  different (Sec. 6.3 p.  165). Results appear in Table
                         IX. Estimates  range from one fatality in 10,000 years to
                         one fatality in 1,000,000,000  years.
                                                 TABLE IX
                      LNG RISK ANALYSIS-MILLION YEARS PER  FATALITY
                                    Los Angeles
                                   Oxnard
                                                Pt. Conception
Model

Federal Power Commission
Science Applications, Inc.
El Paso Alaska Company
Marine
  10
Terminal

  0.01
 10.00
Marine
   1
  100
Terminal
   10
  Marine

   0.1
1000.0
 100.0
                                                                                                    Terminal

-------
Hydroelectric and  Other  Electric  Power
   Summary
    Hydroelectric power is the safest method  of
    power  generation.   However, this resource  is
    capable of supplying only 25% of the nation's
    requirements. Although only  one failure has
    occurred of the more than one thousand operat-
    ing hydroelectric dams  in the United States, 11
    lives were lost and more than $1 billion of prop-
    erty damage occurred.  Failures of other dams
    could have similar consequences. Consequently,
    there is a need to examine the potential for failure
    of other hydroelectric dams.
    Utilities  rank tenth  in frequency of  injuries
    among  all industries. In terms of frequency
    of  accidents the  following ranking  occurs:
    oil> coal> hydroelectrio nuclear.
   In 1974 hydroelectric facilities generated about 16%
of the electricity used in the United States. The North
Pacific area accounted for  more than one-third of the
United States capacity. If the source were developed to
its full potential, it could supply about 25% of the na-
tion's present electrical needs.
   Although more than a thousand dams supply hydro-
electric power in the  country, only one failure has oc-
curred. This was the Teton Dam in Idaho which failed in
June  1976. The breaching caused $1 billion in damage,
caused 11 deaths and killed 13,000 cattle. The Depart-
ment of Interior determined that the cause of the failure
was improper design. A study of thirteen problem dams
has been initiated (Sec. 7.2 p. 178).
   Other possible causes of  dam failure are undermining
caused by  erosion, forces  exceeding  design  for water
pressure,  ice  pressure, earth  pressure, and  earthquake
forces. A severe loss of water without dam failure can
occur through seepage.
   The estimated effects of  damage in terms of fatalities
and monetary losses upon the failure of selected dams
appears in Table X.8 Fatalities could reach hundreds of
thousands and  monetary losses  approach hundreds of
millions of dollars.
   Within the hydroelectric plant several types of acci-
dents can occur. The most serious would be plant inun-
dation caused by conduit failure, extreme river flow or
conventional  openings within equipment, resulting in
failure of turbine and damage to the  electrical circuits
and generator.
   Personnel accidents involving construction, mainten-
ance,  and normal operations are the  most frequent A
survey of four types of power plants  (coal, oil, hydro-
electric, and  nuclear) indicates that for  hydroelectric
plants, the occupational injuries occur at approximately
one-half the frequency and  one-tenth the severity asso-
ciated with all  electric generating  plants. The survey,
covering 1969-1972 reported 4.1 disabling work injuries
per 1 million employee-hours exposure.
   Approximately 25% of the total energy consumed to-
day is  used for electric power generation. By the year
2000 it is expected that this figure may increase to 40%.9
Electricity production  from  all  energy sources in 1974
totaled 1.86 x 1012 KWhe and the projection for 1990
is 4.7 x 1012 KWhe. In 1974, coal provided 44.5%, oil
provided  16.0%,  gas  provided 17.2%,  hydroelectric
power  provided 16.1%, and nuclear  power provided
6.0% of the  electric  power generated  in  the  United
States.
   Data on accidents  associated with  electrical power
generation are sparse. Federal Power Commission (FPC)
regulations require accidents be reported only in the case
of a power outage. Thus, accidents in which power is
maintained but which  cause  death or injury  would not
be reported.
   A serious accident  which  can occur at a boiler-fired
plant is explosion of the boiler. Operation  at elevated
temperatures  and pressures increase the chances  of this
happening. Fires and explosions can also occur in the

-------
                                                TABLE X

           ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF TOTAL FAILURE OF DAM FILLED TO CAPACITY
NAME

Van Norman Dam
San Andreas Dam
Stone Canyon Dam
Encino Dam
San Pablo Dam
Folsom Dam
Chatsworth Dam
Mulholland Dam
Lake Chabot Dam
Shasta Dam

*No allowance for evacuation.
                                         FATALITIES*
  DAY

 72,000
 21,000
125,000
 11,000
 24,000
260,000
 14,000
180,000
 36,000
 34,000
 NIGHT

123,000
 33,000
207,000
 18,000
 36,000
260,000
 22,000
180,000
 55,000
 34,000
DAMAGE IN U.S. DOLLARS

        300,000,000
        110,000,000
        530,000,000
         50,000,000
         77,000,000
        670,000,000
         60,000,000
        720,000,000
        150,000,000
        140,000,000
handling of fuel.  Other  additional but infrequent acci-
dents that can occur in a boiler fired plant are implosion
of the condenser and tube and steam line rupture.
   The most severe accidents which may occur at a gas
turbine  plant are  explosion, asphyxiation, and ruptured
lines. Explosions  can occur in the turbine, compressor,
combustor,  and  recuperator. Asphyxiation  may  be
caused by accidental release of toxic substances such as
hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and  coal tar vola-
tiles.
   Other accidents which may occur in the generation of
electricity  include  power failure, flooding,  electrical
fires, and  occupational  injuries.  Power  failures  cause
widespread  but  minor  damage.  Customers experience
loss  of electricity over a wide area. Power failures may
be caused by factors internal or external to the power
plant. Causes include generator malfunction or line fail-
ure caused  by lightning strikes, falling trees, ice accumu-
lation, and vehicles striking  power poles. Occupational
injuries   include  back  strain, electrical  burns, steam
burns, and shock.
   National Safety Council data for 1972 show that, for
sampled electric utilities, the frequency rate for fatal and
permanent  total disability was 0.12 injuries per million
                      person hours exposure. The utilities ranked tenth in the
                      frequency of injuries among all industries. In terms of
                      frequency of injuries (number of disabling work injuries
                      per million  employee-hours  exposure)  the  following
                      ranking  occurs  (1972  data);  oil   (13.69)>coal
                      (10.8)>hydroelectric (4.1)>nuclear (3.0). In  terms  of
                      severity  of accidents (total days charged for work in-
                      juries  per million employee hours exposure) the follow-
                      ing ranking  occurs  (1972  data):  coal (1950)>oil
                      (461)>hydroelectric (149)>nuclear (43).
                         In  addition  to electric power generation,  other end
                      uses are  transportation and  industrial, residential, and
                      commercial use. Transportation accounts  for 25% of the
                      energy consumption of the United States. The industrial
                      sector consumes 28% and the residential/commercial use
                      is 23%. Transportation accidents occur frequently and can
                      be considered major. The most common is vehicle colli-
                      sion. Other accidents  involve aircraft, motorized farm
                      equipment, and ships. In the industrial sector, fires, ex-
                      plosions, and floods comprise  a major proportion of the
                      accidents. Commercial/residential sector   accidents  are
                      frequent but minor. Most home accidents  do not involve
                      the use  of energy. However,  accidents involving appli-
                      ances  and heating and other equipment can cause injury,
                      damage to equipment, or fire.

-------
Developing  Energy Systems
    Summary
    It is difficult to evaluate developing energy tech-
    nologies in terms of safety. No operating data
    exists and  extrapolations  must be made from
    demonstration  plants or from similar technolo-
    gies.
    The United States has vast deposits of oil shale,
    but current oil prices have  not necessitated their
    development. The frequency and severity of ac-
    cidents associated with  oil  shale development
    probably  will be dependent upon  the ratio  of
    open pit to underground mining.
    There has been little experience with solar energy
    systems in the  United States. Although most ac-
    cidents associated with solar energy use  are ex-
    pected  to be minor, occasionally major accidents
    may occur.
Geothermal

   The geothermal resources are based on the tempera-
ture distribution  within  the earth,  ranging from very
high temperatures at the core  to mild temperatures at
the surface. There is limited operating experience with
this energy source, the  longest  United States experience
being 15 years. A major accident which may occur in
association with the development of geothermal energy
is a blowout causing the release of hot fluids, steam, and
other gases found in geothermal fluids. Blowouts may
occur during drilling operations  or during steady state
operations. In the latter situation, the blowout would be
caused by structural  failure of the cements and  casing
materials in the well. A blowout can cause the loss of an
entire rig with the drill string operator suffering possible
injury or  death. In the extreme, the ground may sud-
denly open and the entire rig  collapse into the chasm.
One type of blowout which occurred at the Geysers was
caused by the instability of the formation (an old land-
slide) through which the well passes. The unconsolidated
nature of the landslide  allowed the steam to escape into
the ground with the potential of eruption when attempts
were made to cap the  well.
   Earthquakes could have a  severe impact  on a geo-
thermal facility. They  may cause pipeline ruptures and
well splitting.  The latter  could cause contamination  of
potable  water supplies. Pressure buildup  due to silica
precipitation  may also  cause pipeline leaks or ruptures
(Sec. 8.2 p. 194).
   Subsidence, a very slow process, is also a possibility.
This has occurred at Wairakei, New Zealand where sub-
sidence has totalled 4 meters since 1956. Subsidence can
cause damage  to buildings and equipment and flooding
may occur in low lying coastal areas. Seismicity, a more
sudden  occurrence, may be  induced by  injection  of
spent geofluids. The likelihood and severity of such  an
event has not been evaluated.

Oil  Shale

   Oil shales  are shales which  have a high  organic con-
tent.  The  organics are recoverable by pyrolysis at tem-
peratures around 350°C. The United States has vast de-
posits of oil shale. The government has leased four tracts
for development, but  at current petroleum prices it is
not yet clear that these leases will lead to production
before 1985.  An assessment of the potential for accident
in the oil  shale industry must be based on engineering
judgment because there is no commercial scale develop-
ment of oil shale (Sec. 9.0 p. 196).
   Roof collapse,  blasting  accidents,  dust explosions,
and  subsidence  during  extraction, explosions  during
processing especially during hydrogenation, pipeline rup-
tures  during  transportation, and loss of ground  water
control  due  to failure of retaining dams  are  possible
major accidents (Sec. 9.2 p.  202). The accident record of
this industry  may be dependent upon whether surface or

-------
underground mining techniques are used. Both are possi-
ble but one cannot  predict which  will predominate. If
open-pit mining should prevail, one study suggests that
oil shale accident rates will be more similar to copper
mining than to coal mining. Metal mining fatalities in the
western states in 1972 totalled 14 and injuries totalled
1331. This amounted to 0.25 deaths/million employee-
hours  and  24  injuries/million  employee-hours.  The
latter figure is  intermediate between the injury  rates
given for surface mining of coal (10 injuries/million em-
ployee-hours) and for underground mining  of coal (35
injuries/million employee-hours).
Solar Energy
   Solar energy has not yet been used to an appreciable
extent  because  the technologies  have not been  suffi-
ciently  developed and potential users have little experi-
ence in utilizing solar-type systems. Four types of solar
energy have been considered. They are direct conversion,
wind, tidal and wave, and biomass conversion.
   The  three methods of direct conversion of solar en-
ergy are photo-voltaic, solar-thermal, and ocean thermal
energy  conversion (OTEC). The accidents associated
with photovoltaic conversion probably will be minor and
infrequent. These accidents will involve solar cell break-
age, wire failure,  DC/AC converter failure, and electrical
fires. Monetary losses associated with solar-thermal acci-
dents may be major if the  reflector was damaged or the
boiler ruptured.  OTEC accidents may be major if trans-
mission  pipelines suffer corrosion or  if fires or explo-
sions occur during the ocean based manufacture, storage
or transport of the oxygen and hydrogen produced. Other
possible injuries may  result from  glare or concentrated
radiation. Occupational injuries for solar power are esti-
mated   at  0.5-1.6 man-days lost/MWe/year  (Sec.  10.2
p. 218).
   Accidents associated with wind energy  systems in-
clude production of air turbulence, broken rotor blades,
ice shedding from blades,  and possible collapse of  the
unit as  a result of design  error, storm,  or  earthquake.
Accidents  associated with  tidal energy systems may in-
clude flooding, structural collapse, control  gate failure,
and marine ship  collisions. Biomass conversion systems
may experience  accidents  such as explosions and  fire
linked to methane or hydrogen and  oxygen production
(Sec. 10.2 p. 220).
10

-------
Adverse  Natural and  Other Incidents
    Summary
    Natural disasters cause many hundreds of deaths
    and billions of dollars of damage annually. Much
    of the nation's oil and gas resources are located
    in areas prone to hurricanes and seismic activity.
    Little can be  done to  stop these events and the
    best protection lies in building of structures to
    withstand these natural shocks, choice of opti-
    mum location and  formulation  of emergency
    procedures so as to minimize detrimental results.
    Unintentional human-caused adverse events such
    as airplane  or  missile  crashes do  not  present a
    significant  threat to energy installations. How-
    ever, improper siting could greatly increase the
    risk.  Acts of sabotage could  disrupt or destroy
    energy production  or  transportation in  a given
    geographical sector.
   Natural  incidents include hurricanes,  tornadoes,
floods, tsunamis, snow and ice storms, earthquakes, land
subsidence, avalanches  and  landslides,  volcanic erup-
tions, and meteorite impact. Anthropogenic incidents in-
clude airplane and missile  crashes, sabotage, terrorism,
and war activities.
   The effect of a natural  disaster on an industrial in-
stallation can be as severe as a nuclear blast detonating a
few miles from the plant. Up to 26 natural disaster areas
are declared in the United States per year.  They are
responsible  for about 500 to 600 fatalities annually and
economic losses average $10-15 billion (Sec. 12.1  p.
240).
   The types of damage produced by natural disasters
include  flood  damage  to  storage facilities, processing
facilities, and transmission  lines, physical stress damage
tojjrocessing facilities, rupturing of pipelines and explo-
sions and fires resulting from escaped gases and highly
flammable liquids.
   The  destruction potential of man-caused adverse
events is great. No industrial installation is immune to
sabotage but damage is  usually minor and the act is con-
sidered as an  irritant.  However,  a well-planned act  of
sabotage or  a nuclear weapon could completely demolish
all structures within an area. Unintentional events, i.e.,
aircraft and missile crashes  do not usually present a sig-
nificant threat to energy installations (Sec. 12.2 p. 252).
For  Further Information
1. Bliss, C. et al., Accidents and Unscheduled Events
   Associated with Non-Nuclear Energy Resources  and
   Technology, EPA-600/7-77-016, February, 1977, pp.
   273.
2. National  Petroleum Council. Environmental Con-
   servation—The  Oil and Gas  Industries (2 Volumes).
   Washington, D.C., 1971 and 1972.
3. National Academy of Sciences, Petroleum in the Mar-
   ine  Environment,  Washington,  D.C.,  1975,  pp.
   104-107.
4. Blumer M.  Oil  Contamination and the Living  Re-
   sources of the Sea. In: FAO Technical Conference on
   Marine Pollution and Its Effects on Living Resources
   and Fishing. Rome, Italy, December 1970.
5. University of Oklahoma, 1975. Energy Alternatives, a
   Comparative Analysis. Science and Public Policy Pro-
   gram. Norman, Oklahoma. 1975. pp. 1.1-1.121.
6.  Department of Transportation, Eighth Annual Report
   on the Administration of the Natural Gas Pipeline
   Safety Act of 1968, 1975, pp. 1-30.
7.  Philipson, Lloyd L., "The Systems Approach to the
   Safety of LNG Import Terminals." Prepared for the
   State of California Energy  Resources Conservation
   and Development  Commission,  Draft Report,  pp.
   VI-1 to VII-3.
8.  Ayyasenamy, P., B. Hauss, T. Hsiih, A. Mascati, T. E.
   Hicks, and D. Okrent. Estimates of the  Risks Asso-
   ciated with Dam  Failure. Prepared for  the United
   States  Atomic  Energy  Commission.  University  of
   California at Los Angeles, 1974, p. 375.
9.  Penner, S.  S. and  L.  Icerman. Energy: Non-Nuclear
   Energy Technologies, Vol. 2. Addison-Wesley, Read-
   ing, Massachusetts, 1975.
                                                                                                      11

-------

-------