The federal government agency report comes after the release of a 3,000-page environmental review document.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
A federal government agency last week issued a report stating that more research needs to be done on the possible impacts of terrorist attacks and damage resulting from accidents on liquefied natural gas tankers like the one proposed for the coast of Malibu by Australian energy company BHP Billiton.
“Because there have been no large-scale LNG spills or spill experiments, past studies have developed modeling assumptions based on small-scale spill data,” stated the reported issued by the Government Accountability Office. “While there is general agreement on the types of effects from an LNG spill, the results of these models have created what appears to be conflicting assessments of the specific consequences of an LNG spill, creating uncertainty for regulators and the public.”
The report further states: “Additional research to resolve some key areas of uncertainty could benefit federal agencies responsible for making informed decisions when approving LNG terminals and protecting existing terminals and tankers, as well as providing reliable information to citizens concerned about public safety.”
According to the report, a panel of experts was assembled to look at six recent studies on LNG hazards. The studies identified various distances at which the heat effects of an LNG fire could be hazardous to people. They concluded that the distance at which 30 seconds of exposure to the heat could burn people ranged from less than a third of a mile to a mile and a quarter. The 2004 study by Sandia National Labs, which is used as a guideline by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the United States Coast Guard, said that the most likely distance for a burn is about one mile. According to the GAO, seven of the panel’s experts agreed with the Sandia study’s estimation, while another eight experts did not. Of those, four believed it was too conservative and another four believed it was not conservative enough.
The panel also discussed other features of studies on potential LNG disasters, agreeing with some of the conclusions and disagreeing with others.
The Department of Energy recently funded a study to consider the effects of LNG disasters. The GAO report recommended that the DOE study include its findings, and said that it was concerned the current study was not addressing all the potential issues.
“We particularly recommend that DOE examine the potential for cascading failure of LNG tanks in order to understand the damage to the hull that could be caused by exposure to extreme cold or heat.”
The report was addressed to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which plans to hold hearings on the issue of LNG. The committee issued a press release shortly after the report was released, with various members saying the report raised some concerns.
“GAO found that there are widely conflicting estimates regarding worst-case consequences of a terrorist attack on LNG tankers,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA).
He continued, “It’s very troubling that our knowledge about the potential public safety consequences of a terrorist attack on these vessels is not better.”
BHP Billiton is proposing to build a 14-story-tall, 300-yard long LNG facility 14 miles off the coast of Malibu. A 3,000-page EIR for the project was released earlier this month. That report addresses many issues, including environmental impacts and safety issues. Three separate hearings on that project will take place next month before the Coast Guard, the State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission.
BHP Billiton issued a statement on Tuesday in response to the GAO report.
“Cabrillo Port’s distant offshore location is designed to minimize disruption to onshore activities, populations and the environment, while enhancing public safety and protecting national security,” the statement read.
It continued, “Cabrillo Port is 14 miles from the closest point to shore thereby limiting any exposure to large population centers. We planned it this way to provide the people of California with what they want; minimal environmental impact on the coastline, sea and air. [It also provides] what they need, the highest degree of safety from its sources of natural gas.”