al.com
Congressional report notes experts' LNG concerns
02/29/04
By BEN RAINES
Staff Reporter
A newly released congressional report acknowledges that experts have identified critical problems in the federal laws that govern the siting of new liquefied natural gas terminals.
The report also suggests that Congress may find that the terminals pose unacceptable public safety risks from accident or attack, and it offers options that Congress could consider, ranging from banning the construction of LNG terminals onshore to allowing the existing, but controversial, regulations to stand.
Two companies have proposed building LNG facilities on Mobile Bay, one within a mile of a residential area, and the other about a mile south of downtown Mobile.
The new report by the Congressional Research Service follows a September report by the same service stating that studies of possible LNG terminal attacks "have concluded that such risks, while significant, are not as serious as is popularly believed."
The new report says, in part, that experts have "questioned the validity of LNG hazard studies used by federal regulatory agencies, which suggest that LNG terminal risks, while significant, are not as serious as is popularly believed."
Also, experts have "questioned the adequacy of key LNG siting regulations related to safety zones, marine hazards, hazard modeling, and remote siting," according to the new report.
Reports by the federally funded research service are supposed to serve as unbiased reference tools to help members of Congress understand the complexities of the issues before them.
Top LNG scientists, including some within the federal government, have said that the LNG hazard studies cited in the service's September report were significantly flawed, or had been misused by federal officials to downplay dangers.
The Mobile Register has reported extensively on those LNG hazard studies and noted their inclusion in a number of federal documents. U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., have raised concerns about the adequacy and use of existing studies.
It is unclear what prompted the Congressional Research Service to produce the new report, which is dated Jan. 28. Paul W. Parfomak authored the September report, and had stated last year that it "will not be updated."
On Thursday, Parfomak told the Register that he was unable to respond to questions about his work. He is listed as one of two authors of the new report, along with a legislative attorney.
The new congressional document cites a number of articles published in the Mobile Register, and references two ongoing federal LNG studies initiated in the wake of the newspaper's reporting.
Overall, the new report reflects growing criticism of the studies cited in the previous report, as well as criticism of the way that federal agencies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the departments of Energy and Transportation, have interpreted existing laws.
The new report, like the earlier report, mentions a study produced by Lloyd's Register of Shipping for Distrigas, the owner of Boston's LNG terminal. The Lloyd's study, completed in October 2001, examined what would happen to an LNG tanker in the event of a terrorist attack on the ship.
But the new report does not mention one of the most disturbing conclusions of the proprietary Lloyd's study. A terrorist, using a compact explosive charge, could start a chain reaction of explosions and fires that would consume the entire ship, the Lloyd's study warned.
The Lloyd's study indicated that such a scenario would almost inevitably lead to a catastrophic failure of the hull of the vessel and a spill of LNG that would be much larger and much more dangerous than anything that had been considered in federal studies of LNG hazards.
Experts have stated that such a fire would likely be more than a mile wide, and would produce searing heat capable of burning people two miles away.
Although federal officials have had the results of the Lloyd's study for more than two years, the catastrophic scenario it outlines has largely been overlooked in federal documents. Officials with FERC, which has responsibility for safe siting of LNG terminals, announced last month that they would be re-examining the Lloyd's study.
The two LNG terminals proposed for Mobile Bay by ExxonMobil Corp. and Cheniere Energy Inc. have both been "put on the back burner," according to oil industry publications, though both companies say they are still investigating the possibility of building here.
Supertankers holding millions of gallons of super-chilled LNG would dock at the terminals to unload their cargo, which would be converted to the vaporous form of natural gas for consumer use. |
