A Risk-Informed Approach to Performance Assurance - Structural Integrity of Offshore Wind Turbines - page 62

TABLE 4-1 Comparison of Risks with Traditional Offshore and Land-Based
Energy Industries: Safety and the Environment

Level of Risk

Liquid Life Safety: Life Safety:

Hydrocarbon Normal Design

Energy Industry Release Operations Conditions

Oil and gas—shelf M L M

Oil and gas—“frontier” H M H

Land fossil (coal and natural gas), Texas VL L M

Land fossil (coal and natural gas), VL L M

Cook County, Illinois
Land wind facility

VL VL L

Offshore wind a —“tower” L VL L

Offshore wind b —central platform L L, M c M

Offshore liquefied natural gas terminal VL H H

Land liquefied natural gas terminal VL H H

N OTE : VL = very low, L = low, M = moderate, H = high. Coding criteria include life safety,
protection of the environment, and economic thresholds.
a Turbines and turbine support.
b Central facilities.
c L if evacuated prior to design condition; M if manned.

wind turbines are generally lower than for structural failure in the fossil
energy industries.

REGULATORY OPTIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Because the environmental and life safety risks of offshore wind facilities
are relatively low, the form and extent of government regulation comes
into question. If there are smaller safety and environmental risks associ-
ated with structural failure of an offshore wind farm, then a natural ques-
tion to ask is whether the financial and insurance risk assumed by the
developer is sufficient for regulating the industry. Or, to put it another
way, are there reasons for overseeing the performance of offshore wind
structures beyond mitigating these low risks?

Policy Considerations

In 2010 the United States made significant strides in the offshore wind
rulemaking process, and several projects proposed off the East Coast are