US official says LNG shipments can be safe

WASHINGTON -- The government's top fossil fuels specialist said yesterday that a new study of risks of liquefied natural gas tanker spills provides the clearest evidence of the serious dangers a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker would pose to an urban area, but he believes such shipments ''can be done safely" with tight security.

Mark Maddox, the Energy Department's principal deputy assistant secretary for fossil energy, praised the security measures used in Boston during dockings by LNG tankers at the terminal in Everett, but suggested the study might provide information that could lead to greater protections. LNG tankers pass within a few hundred feet of downtown Boston weekly en route to the Distrigas terminal.

''Boston has been very, very aggressive about their safety issues," Maddox said. ''This [new study] may help them to polish their plan and their approach somewhat, but they pretty much have been out front with vessels and moving them in a secure manner."

The new Energy Department study, conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, found that a thermal blast from a terrorist attack on a tanker would ignite buildings more than a third of a mile away and cause second-degree burns on exposed skin for up to a mile -- far into the city.

In addition, the full study, which was released yesterday, warns of some previously unknown dangers related to LNG shipments.

Those include the likelihood that an LNG blast would cause cascading explosions in nearby power stations, such as the Mystic plant generators adjacent to the Distrigas terminal, and the small possibility that a large vapor cloud could extend more than two miles before igniting, thereby spreading destruction much farther than if it ignited immediately.

''The thermal radiation from the ignition of a vapor cloud can be very high within the ignited cloud and, therefore, particularly hazardous to people," the report stated.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, airspace over Boston and the Tobin Bridge have been closed during LNG shipments. The Coast Guard reviews each ship's crew, boards and inspects the vessels before they enter the harbor, and escorts them in under tight security.

Local public safety agencies are given advance notice of each arrival so they can coordinate preparations.

Asked during a conference call with reporters whether his confidence meant that there was nothing more that could be done to make LNG shipments through Boston Harbor safer for city residents, however, Maddox demurred, saying the Coast Guard was constantly reevaluating threats and its responses to them.

Meanwhile, the US Coast Guard's headquarters disclosed yesterday that it has convened a working group to devise new guidelines for protecting harbor areas from a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker, drawing on Boston's experiences with the Distrigas facility in Everett as well as the Energy Department's study.

Coast Guard spokeswoman Jolie Shifflet said the working group will review Boston's procedures in light of the new study to determine if extra protections are necessary, although its primary purpose is to create a security policy that can be used where new LNG terminals may be constructed. As many as eight new terminals could be constructed around the nation in the next five years, and more than 40 sites are under consideration.

''There's certainly things that could be useful for evaluating current security measures," Shifflet said, adding, ''I think we're doing just about everything we can to safely ship LNG in Boston."

The study is accompanied by a companion classifed report that sets forth more precisely what would happen in the event of various kinds of attacks, such as that of a missile, a kamikaze plane, a rocket-propelled grenade, a ramming by an explosives-laden boat, or internal sabotage.

Maddox declined to comment on those details yesterday, citing security concerns.

Frank Katulak, the senior vice president of operations for Distrigas, said the company studied the report's suggestions for ways to ensure security and found that all those steps were already in place in Boston Harbor.

Julie Vitek, a Distrigas spokeswoman, added that LNG shipping was just one of many risks that came into new light after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

''To put this issue into perspective, it's important to keep in mind that in the wake of 9/11 we didn't stop flying on airplanes or working in skyscrapers," Vitek said.

''Steps were initiated to reduce the risk through additional security measures because that was the best way to ensure the national interest and our quality of life, and that's what's been happening in the LNG industry," Vitek said.

Noting that New England's economy depends on LNG for up to 20 percent of its energy, Bryan Lee, a spokesman for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said the government will use the Sandia study to minimize the risk of LNG shipments as much as possible, but they must continue.

The Sandia study did not address specific sites. US Representative Edward J. Markey, the Malden Democrat whose district includes Everett and who has been a longtime LNG watchdog, said yesterday that he would ask for a follow-up for Boston.