CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS
VOL. 57, 2017
A publication of
The Italian Association
of Chemical Engineering
Online at www.aidic.it/cet
Guest Editors: Sauro Pierucci, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Laura Piazza, Serafim Bakalis
Copyright © 2017, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
ISBN 978-88-95608- 48-8; ISSN 2283-9216
Analysis of Accident Data for the Bioenergy Sector Based on
Second Generation Feedstocks
Jeffrey Seaya, Erika Lunghib, Abdul Rehmanb, Bruno Fabianob*
a College of Engineering, 4810 Alben Barkley Drive, University of Kentucky, Paducah, KY 42002, USA
b DICCA Polytechnic School, University of Genoa, via Opera Pia 15, 16145 Genoa, Italy
brown@unige.it
The false perception that the risk operating with bio-refineries, as opposed to traditional petroleum refineries is
lower has led to a lack of specific safety requirements in the field of bio-energy, even when considering the
fact that the major parts of these plants are small scale and are below the threshold values for the application
of Seveso directives. In this context, a thorough analysis of accidents related to the production of bio-energy is
here performed and, specifically, a comparison between Europe and USA. The gathered information is
comprised of general data, including activity, location, type of accidents, causes, injuries and fatalities; the aim
is to build a useful instrument of analysis, in order to investigate and identify the main and recurrent hazards in
the area, as well as to implement risk assessment tools and become aware of the gap between Europe and
America. The frequency analysis and the assessment through the use of a rapid risk matrix, confirm that a
non-negligible risk profile may be attributed to bio-energy industries. Safety culture in bio-energy production is
an issue of primary importance, as well as the need for extending accident investigation, looking beyond the
immediate technical causes for ways of avoiding the hazards and for deficiencies in the management system.
1. Introduction
Several questions have been asked regarding the future dependence on fossil fuel due to the rapid increase in
utilization of energy (EIA, 2011). Only few countries have made serious developments to curtail energy
dependence on fossil fuel, thus shifting the focus of recent research on the development of sustainable
alternate source of energy. In particular, bio-hydrogen is considered a suitable fuel for a future climate-
constrained world, provided that advanced modelling allows identifying the limiting operating conditions for
scale-up and reactor stability (Palazzi et al., 2002). The challenge in developing alternative processes is to
utilize available renewable resources to determine the optimum product slate and corresponding production
rate considering both economic profitability and health, safety and environmental impact. Recent LCA studies
proved a reduction of more than 50% in greenhouse gases during the bio-fuel production from biomass
utilizing thermochemical, or biochemical techniques (Amundson et al., 2014). Opportunities were identified to
improve the biodiesel life-cycle energy efficiency and environmental impact in relevant areas (mainly USA,
Brazil, Argentina and P.R. China) by implementing new technologies in agriculture and in industrial processing
(Milazzo et al., 2013). Political determination has also been amassed in addition to this scientific backing in
support of broadening the adoption of bio-fuels around the planet. The EU established a charter regarding
minimum bio-fuel content which will be fully effective by 2020. According to the clause of Directive
2003/30/CE, the member countries have been assigned a mandate that transportation fuel will have a ratio of
10% bio-fuel in it by that time (Londo et al., 2010). Similarly, the USA took conspicuous steps to increase the
utilization of biomass for production of bio-fuels publically. The establishment of Renewable Fuels Standards
(RFS) in 2005 (Public Law 109-58, 2005) and RFS 2 in 2007 (Public Law 110-140, 2007) were major
advancements to set-up a goal of bio-energy production from biomass. Second generation lignocellulosic
biomass is considered to be a rational and applicable energy source among other bio-based resources,
because it offers no food clash, fewer greenhouse gas emission, and versatile choice of feedstock (Cherubini
and Strømman, 2011; Nigam and Singh, 2011). This type of feedstock is comprised of agricultural waste,
woody plants, herbaceous plants, dedicated energy crops, aquatic plants and animal wastes (McKendry,
DOI: 10.3303/CET1757131
Please cite this article as: Seay J., Lunghi E., Rehman A., Fabiano B., 2017, Analysis of accident data for the bioenergy sector based on
second generation feedstocks, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 57, 781-786 DOI: 10.3303/CET1757131
781
2002). The conversion processes used for bio-refining of biomass are listed as thermochemical, bio-chemical
and hybrid processes, thus posing economic, environmental and social considerations. Case histories provide
an empirical contribution to our understanding of the hazards related to both novel technologies and existing
processes or activities, forcing operators to take appropriate measures, possibly applying novel methodologies
and solutions (Vairo et al., 2016). Although many authors, in the current literature, underline the sustainability
of bio-energy from the three pillars point of view, there are only few safety studies (Casson Moreno and
Cozzani, 2015) and unstructured statistical analysis. The lack of specific safety requirements in the field of bio-
energy originates from the fact that the majority of production plants are medium-small scale and, with
reference to European legislation, are below the threshold values for the application of Seveso directives.
Even if bio-processes are often perceived as safer than the traditional ones and having a lower impact on the
environment (Casson Moreno et al., 2016), in recent years several high profile accidents have occurred in the
field of biological processes, resulting in the release of hazardous substances, fires and explosions. Thus,
during the different phases of the bio-energy production process, hazardous materials are forged, processed
and gathered, causing disasters resulting in economic, social, environmental and occupational losses (Jenkins
et al., 2013). The dearth of safety practices, standardized investigation of accidents and absence of
analytically persistent accidental databases are the other factors contributing to the existing challenges in this
field (Heezen et al., 2013). Today, the majority of organizations realize the usefulness of learning from
accidents in order to identify economic, social, environmental and occupational risks (Fabiano et al., 1995), by
keeping record of incidents with injuries, fatalities, or loss of assets and by applying rational approaches to
identify the root causes of these accidents (Fabiano and Currò, 2012), and obtain significant statistical
comparative figures (Palzzi et al.,2014). In this context, a deep analysis of accidents related to the production
of bio-energy is considered desirable and it is here performed, by an accurate comparison of accidents
between Europe and USA. The aim is to build a useful instrument of analysis by gathering information from
different sources concerning accidents, incidents or near-misses, as well as to investigate and identify the
main and recursive hazards in the area. The gathered information comprises of general data about the
accidents such as activity, location, type of accidents, causes, injuries and fatalities. Statistical analysis of this
collected information will help to determine major sources of risk, avoid recurrence of accidents, implement
risk assessment tools and raise awareness of the gap between Europe and USA is this sector. The obtained
results act as an early warning regarding accidents in bio-energy sector and also advocate the importance of
safety culture as well as of advanced risk assessment.
2. Methodology
Raw data from previous accidents occurring in bio-energy sector were obtained through scientific literature,
open data sources and previous publications, as well as specific database. The following accident databases
were used: FACTS (Failure and Accidents Technical Information System), managed by the Unified Industrial
& Harbour Fire Department, Rotterdam-Rozenburg (NL),which contains information on more than 25,700
industrial accidents involving hazardous materials in the last 90 years; ARIA (Analysis, Research and
Information on Accidents) by the French Ministry of Ecology, covering 40,000 accidents since 1992 (French
Ministry of Ecology, 2016); MHIDAS (Major Hazard Incident Data Service) which started in the 1980s and
includes over 14,000 incidents in more than 95 Countries (UK Health and Safety Executive, 2016) and JST
(Japan Science and Technology Agency).
Figure 1: Database structure developed starting from European accident records.
782
Figure 2: Database structure developed starting from USA accident records.
Additional sources include Loss Prevention Bulletin (IChemE,, UK); Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA); Industrial Fire World (IFW); US Environmental Protection Agency reports; the
Biodiesel Magazine and Bio-fuels Journal. Gathered information covered accidents and incidents, which
occurred in the bio-energy sector, using second generation biomass: in USA in the period 1998-2014, in
Europe in the period 1997-2013. The accidents were selected manually by checking each record in order to
eliminate errors and avoid possible repetitions, thus obtaining a total of 208 validated events (166 USA; 42
Europe). The collected data were organized in two data sets, both for USA and Europe. The structure of each
database is reported in Figure 1 (Europe) and in Figure 2 (USA). The main differences that can be noted in
the structure of the two data sets are due to the available level of detail for the accidents.
3. Results and Discussion
Figure 3 shows the trend of the number of accidents with respect to time on a biennial basis occurring in the
USA for the chosen period; Figure 4 illustrates the same data with reference to incidents in Europe. A
substantial difference can be noticed, especially after the period 2006 – 2007. The considerable reduction in
the number of accidents happening in the USA after 2009, is to be attributed to the lack of investment in this
sector due to the global economic crisis. The difference in behavior in response to the crisis is observed in
Europe, demonstrated by an increasing trend of accidents in the sector. Due to the crisis, Europe became
distrustful of traditional sources of energy, and the need to emancipate from them became strong. Considering
the type of accidents occurring, statistics from USA, summarized in Figure 5, indicate that is fire main cause
(56%, 93 issues), followed by explosion-fire (19%, 31 issues) and spill (11%, 18 issues). As evidenced by Fig.
6, statistics from Europe show a similar behavior concerning fire (54%, 23 issues), but see explosion as a
relevant item (24%, 10 issues), followed by explosion-fire (12%, 5 issues). Compared to a conventional solid
fuel and referring to the main accident scenario classification, long-term coal statistics show that the highest
percentage corresponds to Explosion (47.8%), followed by Fire (35.8%) and Release (16.4%) (Palazzi et al.,
2013; Fabiano et al., 2014).
Figure 3: Number of accidents occurred in USA over
the period 1998 – 2014.
Figure 4: Number of accidents occurred in Europe
over the period 1997 – 2013.
783
Figure 5: Classification of accidents occurred in the
USA, sorted by type.
Figure 6: Classification of accidents occurred in
Europe, sorted by type.
The European trend concerning explosions can be explained even considering the narrowness of the
analyzed sample, compared with the American one. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the interested areas/activities.
Observing the USA statistics, processing and co-product processing are first with 24% followed by raw
materials storage (20%, 34 issues) and bio-diesel storage (14%, 7 issues). Feedstock (33%, 14 issues) forms
the major part of the European incident data, followed by conversion (29%, 12 issues) and storage (24%, 10
issues). Concerning the main causes, a great effort already has to be made in the understanding of the
mishaps occurred in the sector: 41% are stated to be unknown (68 issues) and, combined with the 9% under
investigation (14 issues), it makes the situation indeterminate for a half. Chemical reasons cover the 22% (37
issues), reflecting the fact that the lack of knowledge about chemical reactions, improper handling and storage
of flammable material are aspects of primary relevance not to be underestimated. Mechanical causes too, with
19% (32 issues) demonstrate a significant portion of the incidents in the statistics. Electrical causes (7%, 11
issues) and natural ones (2%, 4 issues), complete the survey. A reflection regarding the incidental frequencies
and the frequencies of injuries/fatalities is illustrated in Figures 9 and 10; it can be observed that, in the USA,
in the years 2001, 2003, 2011, the frequency of injuries/fatalities exceeded the frequency of accidents. In
Europe this phenomenon occurred, in the same way, three times in 1997, 2000, 2011; nevertheless, due to
the great number of facilities in the USA with respect to Europe, Figures 11 and 12 reveal higher values for the
former both for frequency of accidents and for frequency of injuries/fatalities, with the single exception of the
year 2006.
Figure 7: Classification of occurred in the USA,
sorted by area/activity.
Figure 8: Classification of occurred in Europe, sorted
by area/activity.
784
Figure 9: Frequency of accidents – Frequency of
injuries/fatalities in USA.
Figure 10: Frequency of accidents – Frequency of
injuries/fatalities in Europe.
Figure 11: Comparison USA vs. Europe.- Frequency
of accidents, over the time span 1997-2014.
Figure 12: Comparison USA vs. Europe -
.Frequency of injuries/fatalities over the time span
1997-2014.
It should be noted that accident frequencies for each database and for each year were estimated by dividing
the number of recorded events by the considered time interval and by the overall estimated number of bio-
energy production facilities worldwide from various sources (Biomass Magazine, 2016; U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, 2016). Figure 13 reports the
calculated risk matrix, divided into three severity classes, analogously to Casson Moreno and Cozzani, 2015.
4. Conclusions
The statistical survey reveals differences and similarities between number and type of accidents occurring in
bio-energy sector in USA and Europe during a period of 18 years. Economic crisis caused opposite behaviors:
USA reduced the investments in bio-energy sector, coming back to traditional sources, while Europe tried to
become independent from fossil fuels through a bio perspective.
Figure 13: Risk matrix framework calculated for the bio-energy sector.
785
Witness of this fact is the decrease in the trend of accidents in USA and the contemporary increase in the
trend of European ones, with fire representing the most common accident scenario in both areas. European
Countries that are more compatible with bio-energy sector, seem to be France, Germany and UK, even due to
geographic reasons. Eventually, it is most likely that the success of these technologies will depend on the
availability and the quality of the feedstock, the process complexity, the integration with conventional refinery
processes and process/personnel safety issues. The high degree of uncertainty affecting the detection of the
most hazardous activities should be considered as an incentive to fill the gap. Frequency analysis and risk
matrix assessment confirm that a non-negligible risk profile may be attributed to bio-energy industries. Safety
culture, human factor and risk perception in bio-energy production are issues of primary importance,
highlighting the existing of notable loss prevention challenges.
Reference
Amundson J., Brown A., Grabowskic M., Badurdeena F., 2014, Life-cycle risk modeling: alternate methods
using bayesian belief networks, Variety Management in Manufacturing, Procedia CIRP 17, 320 - 325.
Biomass Magazine, 2016, The latest news on biomass power, fuels and chemical,
accessed 08/02/2016.
Casson Moreno V., Cozzani V., 2015, Major accident hazard in bioenergy production, J Loss Prev 35, 135- 144.
Casson Moreno V., Giacomini E., Cozzani V., 2016, Identification of major accident hazards in industrial
biological processes, Chemical Engineering Transactions 48, 679-684.
Cherubini F., Strømman A.H., 2011, Life-Cycle Assessment of bio-energy systems: state of the art and future
challenges, Bioresources Technology 102 (2), 437-451.
EIA, 2011, International Energy Outlook, Washington DC.
Fabiano B., Parentini I., Ferraiolo A., Pastorino R., 1995, A century of accidents in the Italian industry -
Correlation with the production cycle. Safety Science 21, 65-74.
Fabiano B., Currò F., 2012, From a survey on accidents in the downstream oil industry to the development of
a detailed near-miss reporting system, Process Safety and Environmental Protection 90, 357-367.
Fabiano B. Currò F., Reverberi A.P., Palazzi E., 2014, Coal dust emissions: From environmental control to risk
minimization by underground transport. An applicative case-study, Process Safety and Environmental
Protection, 150-159.
French Ministry of Ecology, 2016, ARIA, accessed 06/02/2016.
Heezen P.A.M., Gunnarsdottir S., Gooijer L., Mahesh S., 2013, Hazard classification of biogas and risks of
large scale in biogas production, Chemical Engineering Transactions 31, 37 – 42.
Jenkins A., Gornall L., Cripps H., 2013, Lessons for safe design and operation of anaerobic digesters, Loss
Prevention Bulletin 229, 19-24.
Londo M., Lensink S., Wakker A., Fisher G., Prieler S., Van Velthuizen H., De Wit M., Faaij A., Duer H.,
Lundbaek J., Wisniewski G., Kupczyk A., Kӧnighofer K., 2010, The refuel EU road map for biofuels in
transport: application of the project’s tools to some short-term policy issues, Biomass Bioenerg 34, 244-250.
Milazzo M.F., Spina F., Primerano P., Bart J.C.J., 2013, Soy biodiesel pathways: global prospects, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 26, 579-624.
McKendry P., 2002, Energy production from biomass: overview of biomass, Bioresource Technol. 83, 37-46.
Nigam P.S., Singh A., 2011, Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources, Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science 37(1), 52 – 68.
Olsson L.E., 2007, Biofuels. Advances in Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology, Berlin, Germany.
Palazzi E., Perego P., Fabiano B., 2002, Mathematical modelling and optimization of hydrogen continuous
production in a fixed bed bioreactor. Chemical Engineering Science 57, 3819-3830.
Palazzi E., Currò F., Fabiano B., 2013, Accidental continuous releases from coal processing in semi-confined
environment, Energies 6(10), 5003-5022.
Palazzi E., Currò F., Reverberi A., Fabiano B., 2014, Development of a theoretical framework for the evaluation
of risk connected to accidental oxygen releases, Process Safety and Environmental Protection 92, 357-367.
Public Law 109 – 58, 2005, Energy Policy Act of 2005, USA.
Public Law 110 – 140, 2007, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, USA.
U.K. Health, Safety, Executive, 2016, MHIDAS, accessed 06/02/2016.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of Energy, 2016, Biogas opportunities road map,
accessed 08/02/2016.
Vairo T., Quagliati M., Del Giudice T., Barbucci, A., Fabiano, B., 2016, From land- to water-use-planning: A
consequence based case-study related to cruise ship risk. Safety Science
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.03.024
786