Watchdog Agency Slams Current State of
LNG Science
• GAO Study Says There Are Still Too
Many Unanswered Questions about Tanker Safety
BY HANS LAETZ
A Congressional study on liquefied natural
gas tanker dangers concludes that safety agencies deciding
about building LNG terminals do not have the tools to evaluate
risk from terrorist attack, human error or natural disasters.
And a portion of the study’s panel of scientific experts
thinks that Cabrillo Port’s current worst-case fire
scenario is underestimated.
The report, described by one industry
critic as “stunning and scary,” says existing LNG
safety guidelines are based on studies done in the 1970s and
’80s that only “examined small LNG spills of up to
35 meters in diameter. Following the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, however, many experts recognized that an
attack on an LNG tanker could result in a large spill—a
volume of LNG up to 100 times greater than studied in past
experiments.”
New large-scale safety tests are slated to
occur next year. Federal and state officials are going to make
their determination on BHP Billiton’s proposal for 13.8
miles off Malibu within 60 days.
The Government
Accountability Office report said the current
estimate of the effects if an LNG spill from a ship is limited
to a hole just 39 inches in diameter, and does not take into
consideration the fact that the failure of one tank filled with
a -260 degree fluid might crack a ship’s structural
steel, causing other tanks to leak in what scientists call a
“cascading failure.”
“One expert suggested that a
one-meter hole in the center tank of an LNG tanker that
resulted in a pool fire could cause the near simultaneous
failure of the other four tanks, leading to a larger heat
hazard zone,” the report said.
The GAO report said a majority of its panel
of 15 scientists disagreed with the earlier study, done by the
Sandia National Laboratory. “Only nine of 15 experts
agreed with Sandia’s conclusion that only three of the
five LNG tanks on a tanker would be involved in cascading
failure. Five experts noted that the Sandia study did not
explain how it concluded that only three tanks would be
involved in cascading failure.
“Three experts said that an LNG spill
and subsequent fire could potentially result in the loss of all
tanks on board the tanker,” the report said. The report
focused on LNG transport tankers, and did not address BHP
Billiton’s plan to have such LNG tankers with five tanks
tie up to Cabrillo Port and its additional three larger tanks.
“The GAO report confirms every one of
the points that our experts have been saying,” said
Environmental Defense Center attorney Nathan Alley.
“There is so much uncertainty about very important
matters, and the federal government has now gone on record that
the LNG industry is shirking the amount of detailed research
that needs to be done to protect people and the
environment.”
Oxnard anti-LNG film producer Tim Riley
said, “The GAO study shows the federal scientists are
finally admitting that they do not know what the effects of
millions of gallons of cryogenically-chilled liquid on a
ship’s decks will be. We’ve been saying all along
it would make the ship’s skin peel like a banana, and now
they say they agree that more study has to be done.”
Officials from BHP Billiton would not
respond with specific comments about the conclusions stated in
the government report. John Lockhart, a public relations agent
hired by the company, said the project would be located 14
miles from the nearest homes, and would “provide the
people of California with what they want – minimal
environmental impact on the coastline, sea and air—and
what they need—the highest degree of safety from its
sources of natural gas.”
Lockhart defended the LNG industry’s
safety record, noting that more than “40,000 LNG carrier
voyages covering over 60 million miles have occurred without a
major accident in the past 40 years.”
The GAO study, however, noted that
“some safety incidents, such as groundings or collisions,
have resulted in small LNG spills that did not affect public
safety.”
The GAO report said 10 major areas of study
should be undertaken on how LNG spills would unfold on ships,
but noted that only three areas are being researched at
this time, and none of those new reports will be available to
decision-makers until at least late 2008. New studies on large
fire phenomena, large LNG spills over water, and large-scale
fire testing will be funded in fiscal year 2008, which starts
next October.
But the report says additional studies need
to be conducted on cascading failures, the impact of wind and
waves on a spill and pool fire, the effect of differing hole
sizes, and other critical factors.
“Experts agreed that the most likely
public safety impact of an LNG spill is the heat hazard of a
fire and that explosions are not likely to occur in the wake of
an LNG spill,” according to the report.
“However, experts disagreed on the specific heat
hazard and cascading failure conclusions reached by the Sandia
study.”
The report noted that a majority of its
panel of scientists agreed with the Sandia study. Among the
dissenters, half felt it overestimated the hazards proposed by
LNG tankers, the other half felt it understated those
risks.
The report also notes that “some
safety incidents, such as groundings or collisions, have
resulted in small LNG spills that did not affect public
safety.” That contradicts past claims by BHP Billiton
that LNG tankers have never leaked.
The GAO study calls into question the
adequacy of safety assessments at LNG terminals elsewhere in
the nation being written by the U.S. Coast Guard, which has to
write official Waterways Suitability Assessments for U.S.
harbors. Since Malibu’s Cabrillo Port would be offshore
on the high seas, a WSA is not being drafted for that project,
Coast Guard officials have said.
“Experts disagreed with the heat
impact and cascading tank failure conclusions reached by the
Sandia study, which the Coast Guard uses to prepare Waterways
Suitability Assessments,” the GAO report says.
The City of Malibu and local contributors
are partially funding the EDC’s legal study and possible
challenge to the Cabrillo Port permit, and EDC attorney Alley
said the new congressional study confirms every point on safety
that EDC has made.
“Number one, it says the risk models
used by the federal government to evaluate
Billiton’s safety are inadequate,” he said.
“Number two, every one of their expectations on how an
LNG fire would go down is based on incorrect assumptions or
guesses.
“And number three, there is so much
uncertainty about very important matters,” Alley
said.
Riley, an Oxnard Shores attorney, said the
GAO study says the same thing that he was labeled an
“extremist” for bringing up three years ago.
“And there are a lot of additional
questions raised by the study, like who were the scientists who
were interviewed?” he said. “A lot of those people
may work for the LNG industry as safety consultants.”
Riley said the GAO study shows “an
ever-changing worst-case scenario” and said Malibu
residents cannot rest assured that the permanently anchored
Cabrillo Port would stay put in an emergency.
“BHP Billiton has a proven record of
failure in that department, one of its natural gas terminals
that was supposedly hurricane-proof came loose in a hurricane
and traveled 200 kilometers (124 miles) upside down,” he
said. “There is nothing to stop an LNG leak from snapping
those anchors, and the wind from blowing that facility onto the
shore.”
