Risks of Gas Terminal Are Debated

A gas terminal proposed for the Port of Long Beach is shaping up as a key test of how best to assess the safety of importing natural gas in liquid form, especially if the highly flammable gas is unloaded in a major city.

Tankers would call at the proposed Mitsubishi Corp. terminal twice weekly, unloading enough liquid gas to send 700 million cubic feet of natural gas each day into the pipelines heating homes and generating electricity throughout the Los Angeles Basin.

As federal officials decide whether to approve the Long Beach plant and 30 others nationwide, some leading scientists are asking if those officials know enough about the risks of liquefied natural gas terminals in densely populated areas.

Although LNG is used widely overseas, only four import terminals are operating in the United States, three of them in relatively remote areas.

The scientists are particularly concerned about the possibility of spills caused by potential terrorist attacks on LNG cargo ships, which typically have four or five tanks.

One of the nation’s most respected LNG experts, Jerry Havens, warned last month that if a single tank of LNG spilled on water, it could create a fire half a mile wide that could generate enough heat to inflict second-degree burns on people half a mile away.

Some experts say that scenario is not credible. They question whether a tanker could conceivably release its contents all at once to create such a pool of fire.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Wednesday announced it had hired a consultant to review those questions and report back by the end of March. Industry officials and critics applauded the move.

“We very much need to revisit and revalidate the models the government is using,” said James Lewis, a veteran LNG expert working as a consultant for the Mitsubishi project.

He noted that LNG tankers have a solid safety record.

The safety concerns are being raised as unprecedented enthusiasm for importing LNG is triggering a growing backlash in communities where import terminals might be built.

From Fall River, Mass., to Eureka, Calif., companies are trying to allay public fears that an LNG accident could create a catastrophic fire.

Concerns mounted after 27 people died last month in an explosion and fire at an LNG plant in Algeria.

In Long Beach, 16 protesters lined up Wednesday outside the portside Hilton during an LNG industry conference, waving signs that read “No LNG” and “Boom!” Speakers at the LNG conference expressed frustration that the gas was being blamed for the Algerian explosion, even though the incident had apparently started with a faulty boiler of a type not found in import terminals.

No LNG tanks appeared to have been damaged. The exact cause is still under investigation.

Tom Giles, the man in charge of the Mitsubishi proposal, told the audience that regulatory officials had not seemed overly concerned about the Algerian explosion.

“So it wasn’t a setback?” asked one listener.

“Oh, I think it’s a setback. There are a lot of misquotes out there,” said Giles, head of a Mitsubishi subsidiary called Sound Energy Solutions. But he said he remained confident that residents of Long Beach and surrounding communities would decide the Long Beach project is safe.

In fact, even though the Long Beach project is further along in the approval process than most other projects nationwide, it has stirred far less opposition than proposals in such cities as Mobile, Ala., and Eureka, where developers have still not applied for federal permission to proceed.

Whereas hundreds of people have packed meetings in other cities, an October public meeting to guide the environmental review of the Long Beach project attracted only four members of the public.

Plans for the $400-million Long Beach project are moving ahead swiftly, with a Feb. 23 deadline for the public to submit initial comments. Draft environmental documents are to be released in May, and federal and state officials are expected to decide by fall if the project should be built.

Mitsubishi hopes to start construction next January. If so, the first tanker could arrive in early 2008 at Pier T in the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex.

The seaport, the largest in the United States, is being treated by law enforcement agencies as a potential target for terrorists seeking to disrupt the U.S. economy.

But the application that Mitsubishi filed with federal and state officials Jan. 26 concluded that “the Long Beach LNG import terminal, in general, is not a significant terrorist target.”

For instance, although an explosive charge in a nearby vessel could damage an LNG tanker, “such an attack would not likely result in an LNG release, due to the robust double-hull construction, the distance between the outer hull and the cargo tank and ability of the cargo tanks to withstand the overpressure,” Mitsubishi consultants wrote.

But some scientists are urging that federal officials consider what would happen if LNG did escape a tanker entering a harbor or docked at a terminal, especially in an urban area.

Some experts, including Ron Koopman, a retired scientist with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, believe LNG terminals should be several miles from populated areas.

Havens, the LNG expert and a professor at the University of Arkansas, focused on similar questions in two recent articles in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

“For nearly 50 years now, all discussions of risk and probability in LNG transport have focused on how to account for human errors. The new reality is that we must now consider malicious acts as well,” Havens wrote.

The characteristic of LNG that makes it most attractive to importers makes it potentially dangerous as well.

LNG is created when natural gas is cooled to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, a process in which it shrinks dramatically. Six-hundred cubic feet of gas turns into just one cubic foot of liquid gas.

But that concentrated form means that LNG can release enormous amounts of energy if it accidentally escapes and ignites.

“I am not against LNG, nor do I think LNG is a uniquely dangerous material when compared to other hazardous materials,” Havens said.

“What we’re addressing is whether it’s wise to bring in concentrations of any material with so much energy potential into a populated area,” Havens said. “That’s a question people have to answer for themselves.”