-GAO Study Says There Are Still Too Many Unanswered Questions about Tanker Safety
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.”
Source |
