"All things being equal, I don't see a reason to put one in a residential area unless it's already there. If there's no risk then why incur one?"
Lieutenant Patrick McAdam, commander of operations
at the nation's first LNG facility, August 2002
Calpine's public relations officials have represented that potential hazards would be confined to the site itself. This could not be more deceptive, however, as LNG would quickly return to a vapor if spilled, becoming highly combustible and posing catastrophic threats to people more than three miles away.
The potential hazards of LNG import facilities have been well studied and researched by a range of scientists and experts. This information shows that a human error, earthquake, or terrorist attack could create a "pool fire" or ignitable "vapor cloud" that is extremely dangerous, threatening life and property for 3 miles or more in all directions from the facility. This danger zone would extend past Elk River, Martin Slough, and Myrtle Avenue, encompassing nearly the entire city of Eureka.
As summarized in a recent report to Congress, "...technology improvements since the 1940's have made LNG facilities much safer. Serious risks remain, however, since LNG is inherently volatile and is usually stored in large quantities. Because LNG infrastructure is highly visible and easily identified, it is vulnerable to terrorist attack."
- Pool Fires and Vapor Clouds - Maps and quotes from experts
- Terrorism and LNG
- Earthquake and Tsunami Concerns
- It Wasn't Safe Then... - In the 1970's, the California legislature passed a bill that, if still in effect, would prohibit an LNG facility on Humboldt Bay due to safety concerns.
|
Pool Fires and Vapor Clouds
LNG Storage Tank Rupture Flammable Vapor Cloud Drift  | |
LNG Spill and Pool Fire Pool Size and Thermal Radiation Zone  794KB pdf (click for enlarged view) |
"We do know some things about [pool] fires. They could not be extinguished and would have to burn themselves out. Unlike some other flammable liquids such as crude oil, the gas would burn itself out only when it was totally consumed. And such fires would be expected to burn more rapidly and with greater intensity than crude oil or even gasoline fires." Dr. Jerry Havens, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, August 2003.
Terrorism and LNG
"Successful sabotage of a liquefied energy gas facility in an urban area could cause a catastrophe." U.S. General Accounting Office, 1977.
"The events of September 11, 2001 have raised concerns about the potential for terrorist attacks on the energy system infrastructure of the United States...The consequences of such an incident could be severe, and present a potential problem of great magnitude for public safety officials. The fire that would ensue from a boat bomb attack on a tanker would be of unprecedented size and intensity" Dr. James Fay, MIT, March 2003.
"LNG tankers and land-based facilities are vulnerable to terrorism. Tankers may be physically attacked in a variety of ways to destroy their cargo-or commandeered for use as weapons against coastal targets. Land-based LNG facilities may also be physically attacked with explosives or through other means." Congressional Research Service, September 2003.
Earthquake and Tsunami Concerns
A similar LNG facility was recently proposed in Vallejo, California, but was withdrawn in early 2003 when the City voted against it due to safety concerns. Experts who studied the proposal for the City found that earthquakes posed the greatest threat at that site.
With the proposed Humboldt Bay site, the earthquake risks are just as severe. Since 1980, the North Coast has experienced 11 earthquakes of magnitude 6 or larger, with five of these of about magnitude 7. There are several fault lines that run very close to the proposed site, including the Little Salmon Fault, which exhibits the largest estimated slip rate of all upper plate faults in the region, and the North Spit Fault on the Samoa Peninsula.
It Wasn't Safe Then..
In the late 1970's, the Coastal Commission examined Humboldt Bay and 81 other sites in California as potential locations for an LNG terminal. It determined that Humboldt Bay was not a feasible site, ruling it out with others due to "adverse wind, wave and fog conditions, nearby urban areas, earthquake faults, and rugged land..." At that time, California law prohibited an LNG facility where more than 1,800 people lived or worked within a four-mile radius from its boundary, an area that includes approximately 40,000 people in this case. The LNG Terminal Act of 1977 stated that:
(1) Population density shall be not greater than an average of 10 persons per square mile for a distance of one mile outside the perimeter of the site on which the offloading, regasification, and storage facilities for LNG will be located.
(2) Population density shall be not greater than an average of 60 persons per square mile for a distance of four miles outside the perimeter of the site on which the offloading, regasification, and storage facilities for LNG will be located.
This law was repealed in the 1980's after projected LNG demands never materialized, and an LNG facility was never constructed in California. The same serious threats that existed then remain today, however, making Humboldt Bay an unsuitable location for the facility Calpine now proposes to build.
...It Isn't Safe Now