The Boston Herald, 11/7/03
Copyright 2003

By JAY FITZGERALD

A terrorist attack on a giant liquefied natural gas tanker in Boston Harbor likely would devastate nearby neighborhoods in Boston, Charlestown, and Everett, a forthcoming federal study suggests.

That directly contradicts two key reports that helped the U.S. Coast Guard justify the resumption of LNG shipments through the harbor in the months after Sept. 11, 2001.

Boston Fire Commissioner Paul Christian said he believes the forthcoming study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - assuming it withstands scientific review - would end the debate about what would happen if terrorists successfully struck one of the big, distinctive ships.

"We are looking at a very intense fire," said Christian, who opposed letting LNG tankers return to the harbor two years ago.

The preliminary NOAA study is undergoing peer review.

The reports cited by the Coast Guard two years ago were quickly compiled without scientific review in the immediate weeks after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. They minimized the impact of a major spill if an LNG tanker was attacked, saying any resulting fires would be relatively small and contained.

But NOAA's study, a summary of which was obtained by the Boston Herald, generally sides with a more devastating scenario long portrayed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor emeritus James Fay, said Bill Lehr, a researcher on the NOAA study.

Fay, whose work has frequently come under bitter attack by industry groups, has warned that a strike against an LNG tanker - such as the boat bomb used against the USS Cole in 2000 - could spark a huge inferno that would kill and scorch nearby residents, set waterfront buildings ablaze and shoot searing electromagnetic waves into neighborhoods that could spark even more fires.

Like Fay, Fire Commissioner Christian said he doesn't believe any fire department could put out an initial fire if a ship were struck, due to the gas's rapid burn rate. The best firefighters could do, he said, would be to rush personnel to neighborhoods hit by the blast of energy, putting out secondary fires and treating wounded.

But Christian emphasized that the LNG industry has an excellent safety record. And, he noted, security is very tight when the tankers enter Boston Harbor every 10 days or so, headed for giant gas storage facilities in Everett.

Distrigas of Massachusetts, owner of the Everett tanks, vehemently defended the safety record of its operations there and the tanker ships in general.

Julie Vitek, a spokesman for Distrigas, did not criticize the new NOAA report but said the company has "fundamental disagreements" with Fay's past findings.

Joe McKechnie, vice president for shipping at Distrigas, said the double-hulled tankers - which hold a total of 125,000 cubic meters of liquefied gas - are among the world's best-built ships.

All studies can be manipulated by false assumptions and faulty data - and Fay's studies merely produce the outcomes he desires, McKechnie charged.

Distrigas officials noted that a similar liquefied petroleum tanker was struck by missiles during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s - and no one was killed, the ship didn't blow up and much of the gas was safely recovered afterward.

NOAA's Lehr, in an interview, said his study does not attempt to determine the likelihood of success if a terrorist tried to hit an LNG tanker. He emphasized that he is not an expert on ships and his report does not refer to specific dangers in Boston Harbor.

But he said his report does show that if a large amount of the super-cooled liquid methane ever escaped a ship and was ignited, a huge "pool fire" would ensue, as Fay has long asserted.

The study by NOAA, whose reports are often used by other government agencies to assess safety risks, also concurs with Fay's findings that "thermal radiation" would then shoot more than half a mile in each direction from that pool of fire, exposing nearby neighborhoods to enough heat energy to cause injure people and damage buildings. "A person exposed to this level would feel considerable pain in a few seconds," the summary says.

Christian confirmed that the predicted energy levels released would be extremely dangerous and would likely touch off other fires if it hit flammable materials.

Fay, who could not be reached for comment, has outlined a horrific scene in which the North End and a third of East Boston would be hit with a blast of heat if an LNG tanker were struck in the waterway between the two neighborhoods.

Fay's study is based on 14,000 cubic meters of liquefied gas escaping an LNG tanker, which is not all of its contents.

Brian Salerno, the U.S. Coast Guard's captain of the port of Boston, said he relied on two early reports when making his final decision two years ago to reopen the harbor to LNG shipments. But the reports - one prepared for Distrigas by Lloyd's Register of Shipping and the other for the U.S. Department of Energy - were only "pieces of the puzzle" he had to assess when deciding to resume LNG shipments.

Like Christian, he emphasized that security around LNG shipments is now extremely tight in the post 9-11 era. The shipments are never announced in advance, tankers are surrounded by armed patrol boats, the Tobin Bridge is shut down, and M-16 toting police line waterfront property on the alert, officials note.

Caption: SUPER-SIZED SHIP: A terror attack on an LNG taker like this one in Boston Harbor would be potentially dangerous STAFF FILE PHOTO BY MATTHEW WEST

Caption: TAKING NO CHANCES: Armed police officers along the waterfront and armed patrol boats are among the security measures employed whenever a liquefied natual gas tanker arrives in Boston. STAFF FILE PHOTO BY PATRICK WHITTEMORE

LOAD-DATE: November 08, 2003