In Light of Washington LNG Explosion, Community Demands Answers to Cove Point Export Terminal Concerns
The liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility explosion that rocked a Plymouth, WA, community on Monday, March 31, has Lusby residents demanding answers about a proposed expansion that would enable the Dominion Cove Point liquefied natural gas terminal to become an LNG export facility. The incident should also reignite debate on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) role as a sole siting authority and safety regulator, given the agency’s apparent ongoing failure to fully consider the worst-case, compound safety risks of locating LNG facilities within close proximity to people’s homes.
In light of the concerns and questions outlined below, Calvert Citizens for a Healthy Community is demanding that FERC complete an objective and transparent quantitative risk assessment for Dominion's proposed LNG export facility—an assessment open to public scrutiny and including all potential mishaps, including the worst-case domino effect of explosions like the one that occurred last week in Plymouth.
If FERC refuses to do such an analysis, we call on Gov. O’Malley (D-MD) to order the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to conduct a similarly thorough updated risk analysis. With our and our neighbors’ lives literally on the line, we deserve no less.
WHAT WE KNOW: Dominion’s plan for Cove Point poses unique safety risks and vulnerabilities that could make the consequences of a similar explosion far more severe.
The still unexplained explosion and subsequent fire at the Williams Northwest Pipeline Facility in Washington State shook homes more than a mile away, injuring five workers and sending a “mushroom cloud” of black smoke into the air, according to the Associated Press. Of special concern to Lusby residents, shrapnel from the explosion caused the failure of a single containment LNG storage tank, which led to the formation of a flammable vapor cloud and the evacuation of residents within a two-mile radius. As reported by Reuters, local authorities feared that a second blast could level a 0.75 mile "lethal zone" around the plant.
The day after the horrific incident, LNG expert Jerry Havens, who helped develop the vapor dispersion models that federal regulators used until recently to evaluate hazards from similar facilities, went on record with The Oregonian:
We’re still learning about the safety of all these ventures because we’re moving into a whole new area where we’re handling such large amounts of LNG. … We’re talking about so much energy and so much potential for a catastrophic event to occur. We should really think about whether we should allow these things to be built close to any population center.
The events in Plymouth, WA, were a chilling warning for Lusby residents, especially given the following factors:
- The tanks in Plymouth were single containment tanks, considered the lowest integrity tanks with respect to protecting nearby residents from LNG spills and the resulting flammable vapor clouds.
- The tanks at Cove Point are also single containment tanks. Yet, it should be noted that the largest tanks at the Cove Point terminal are designed to hold more than twice as much LNG volume as the tanks in Plymouth, WA.
- Unlike the Plymouth site, which is in a relatively remote area, the Cove Point site is located within 4,500 feet of approximately 360 homes and is adjacent to a public park.
- The proposed Cove Point export terminal footprint would crowd together additional hazardous processes that the Plymouth site doesn’t have, including a large scale liquefaction train utilizing high pressure, highly explosive liquefied propane gas.
WHY WE’RE CONCERNED: Dominion’s export plan is inherently more dangerous. Meanwhile, a state risk analysis from 2006 indicates that flash fire hazards ALREADY extend offsite at Cove Point, contradicting Dominion and FERC assurances.
If approved, the Dominion facility will be only the second LNG export facility ever built in the lower 48 states and will be the only LNG export facility to ever be built in such a densely populated area. LNG export terminals are believed to be inherently more hazardous than LNG import terminals. The explosion of a liquefaction train at an LNG export terminal in Algeria in 2004 caused massive devastation, killing 27 people and injuring more than 70 people.
FERC is well aware of the Algeria incident—they sent representatives to study it. Bill Powers, an engineer based in California who has studied LNG terminals, along with siting issues for both onshore and offshore proposals, also studied the Skikda, Algeria plant disaster. Noting that Halliburton engineers had missed a weak link in their safety planning for the facility, Powers delivered this stern warning:
That highlights the importance of putting these facilities in places where, no matter what, people will not be at risk. If a company like Halliburton missed a scenario that could cause this, that tells us that we cannot account for all possible accident scenarios at LNG facilities.
The members of Calvert Citizens for a Healthy Community are demanding answers that go beyond the mere assurances Dominion executives have given citizens and local leaders that no risks from the new expansion will go offsite. In fact, Lusby citizens have recently become aware of a report commissioned by the Maryland DNR that appears to directly contradict Dominion’s assurances:
- Apparently, Maryland DNR officials were tasked with producing an independent risk analysis of the 2006 Cove Point expansion, which included the two largest LNG single containment tanks on the site today.
- The DNR report was a quantitative risk assessment that looked at every possible mishap scenario, including terrorism. The DNR report clearly shows that risks DO extend offsite as the plant exists today.
- Indeed, if one of the new Cove Point tanks were to rupture and spill all of its contents, according to a chart on page 23 of that report, citizens within 1,300 meters (4,265 ft.) of that failed storage tank could be exposed to a fatal flash fire risk.
The DNR study of the last expansion appears to be much more extensive from a safety perspective than the limited prescriptive hazard assessment utilized by FERC. The worst mishap scenario referenced in the FERC Environmental Impact Statement for the 2006 Dominion Cove Point expansion was a one hour LNG storage tank leak from a 24 inch sump line into a sub-impound area. The Plymouth, WA, incident proves that a one hour LNG leak from an LNG tank is not the worst-case scenario at an LNG facility in the U.S.
Lusby residents are demanding to know:
- Why were Lusby residents never informed about the involuntary fatal risk hazards we were exposed to with the last expansion at Cove Point?
- Would full containment tanks (in lieu of single containment tanks) have mitigated those risks?
- If FERC safety criteria stipulate that no fatal hazards from LNG terminals may extend offsite, why was the last expansion approved by FERC?
WHAT WE DEMAND: FERC must complete a comprehensive quantitative risk assessment of the worst-case, compound explosion hazards of Dominion’s LNG export facility—involving the full and open participation of residents living in its shadow.
Dale Allison, a father from Lusby, MD, who is a retired U.S. Navy civilian aerospace engineer, responded to the news of the Plymouth LNG facility explosion with a fourth submittal to FERC’s docket on the Dominion Cove Point LNG export expansion, reiterating his concerns regarding the explosive hazards which residents will face with the addition of a utility-scale power plant and a large-scale, extremely hazardous liquefaction train at the already crowded footprint of the Dominion property, which is less than a half mile from his home. Allison reacted to the events in Plymouth:
The unfortunate mishap which just occurred at the Plymouth LNG facility once again highlights the absolute requirement that LNG terminals only be sited in remote locations. Cove Point is not that site.
But, if you insist on proceeding, here is what we require. Because the proposed Cove Point liquefaction site is so tightly packed with hazardous process equipment and materials, and because there are so many homes in close proximity, we demand that a full quantitative risk assessment be performed that not only looks at all individual mishaps, but also addresses all possible mishap escalations. Unfortunately, the Plymouth, WA, mishap also shows us that escalations are REAL. A full QRA is the only way that all residents living close to the Cove Point plant can possibly know the full cumulative risk they face—their probability of loss of life—based on their separation distance from the plant.
Dale’s wife Sue Allison, who has become quite adept at translating her husband’s engineering jargon for neighbors, explained it this way:
I think the Plymouth incident highlights the fact that even when safety precautions are taken, accidents can happen and one mishap can lead to another, and another. In Plymouth there was an explosion, which led to shrapnel flying through air, which led to a ruptured LNG storage tank, which led to an LNG leak, which led to a flammable vapor cloud, which led to a two-mile evacuation. In a word, there was a serious ‘escalation’ event in Plymouth.
We continue to hope that FERC will require an Environmental Impact Statement for Cove Point, but whether the safety analysis for the Dominion expansion is done as part of an Environmental Assessment or an EIS, it must be done right and it must consider worst-case scenarios for residents, which would include escalation events. Residents are often told by our elected officials that we really don’t have a right to complain about the expansion because we bought our homes knowing the plant was there and the expansion will be built inside of the existing Dominion footprint. But the fact that Dominion’s Cove Point facility is constrained by that footprint is exactly why we should be concerned—the closer the hazardous equipment and materials are on site, the greater the chances are that a mishap can escalate.
I recently spoke to a mother of young children whose house faces the plant on Cove Point Road. She explained that she is very anxious about the expansion. FERC’s safety analysis must be able to show that mother, based on how close her house is to the proposed expansion, exactly what her family’s safety risk would be should any foreseeable accident happen on site, which could include an explosion, a full tank leak, or both. If an objective QRA, done right, shows that the expansion will subject residents to an unacceptable level of safety risk, Dominion and our Calvert County government should start planning on buying some houses.
The lesson from Plymouth is clear: It can no longer be “business as usual” at FERC where the safety of residents is concerned. The stakes are way too high at Cove Point. The members of Calvert Citizens for a Healthy Community continue to believe that Cove Point is not an appropriate site for such a hazardous endeavor.
If FERC refuses to do such an analysis, we call on Gov. O’Malley to instruct the Maryland DNR to do another independent risk analysis for the current expansion—one that will become a public document.
We will no longer accept vague assurances about Dominion being a “good neighbor.” It is time to get all the safety facts out on the table.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
By Dolf Gielen and Morgan Bazilian
John Kerry helped bring the world into the Paris climate agreement and expanded America's reputation as a climate leader. That reputation is now in tatters, and President-elect Joe Biden is asking Kerry to rebuild it again – this time as U.S. climate envoy.
Energy Is at the Center of the Climate Challenge<p>The <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/" target="_blank">effects of climate change</a> are already evident across the globe, from <a href="https://theconversation.com/100-degrees-in-siberia-5-ways-the-extreme-arctic-heat-wave-follows-a-disturbing-pattern-141442" target="_blank">extreme heat waves</a> to <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/" target="_blank">sea level rise</a>. But while the challenge is daunting, there is hope. Solar and wind power have become the <a href="https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019" target="_blank">cheapest forms of power generation globally</a>, and technology progress and innovation continue apace to support a transition to clean energy.</p><p>In the U.S. under a Biden administration, long-term national climate legislation will depend on who controls the Senate, and that won't be clear until after two run-off elections in Georgia in January.</p><p>But there is no shortage of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-biden-climate-change-advice/" target="_blank">ideas for ways Biden</a> could still take action even if his proposals are blocked in Congress. For example, he could use executive orders and direct government agencies to tighten regulations on greenhouse gas emissions; increase research and development in clean energy technologies; and empower states to exceed national standards, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-california/defying-trump-california-locks-in-vehicle-emission-deals-with-major-automakers-idUSKCN25D2CH" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">as California did in the past with auto emission standards</a>. A focus on a just and equitable transition for communities and people affected by the decline of fossil fuels will also be key to creating a sustainable transition.</p><p>The U.S. position as the world's largest oil and gas producer and consumer creates political challenges for any administration. U.S. forays into European energy security are often treated with suspicion. Recently, France blocked <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/frances-engie-backs-out-of-u-s-lng-deal-11604435609" target="_blank">a multi-billion dollar contract</a> to buy U.S. liquefied natural gas because of concerns about limited emissions regulations in Texas.</p><p>Strengthening cooperation and partnerships with like-minded countries will be critical to bring about a transition to cleaner energy as well as sustainability in agriculture, forestry, water and other sectors of the global economy.</p>
Creating a Global Sustainable Transition<p>How the world recovers from COVID-19's economic damage could help drive a lasting shift in the global energy mix.</p><p>Nearly one-third of Europe's US$2 trillion economic relief package <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-21/eu-approves-biggest-green-stimulus-in-history-with-572-billion-plan" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">involves investments that are also good for the climate</a>. The European Union is also strengthening its 2030 climate targets, though each country's energy and climate plans will be critical for successfully implementing them. The <a href="https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biden plan</a> – including a $2 trillion commitment to developing sustainable energy and infrastructure – is aligned with a global energy transition, but its implementation is also uncertain.</p><p>Once Biden takes office, Kerry will be joining ongoing <a href="https://www.un.org/en/conferences/energy2021/about#:%7E:text=The%20overarching%20goal%20of%20the,2030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development.&text=Accelerate%20delivery%20of%20United%20Nations,related%20issues%20at%20all%20levels." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">high-level discussions on the energy transition</a> at the U.N. General Assembly and other gatherings of international leaders. With the U.S. no longer obstructing work on climate issues, the G-7 and G-20 have more potential for progress on energy and climate.</p><p>Lots of technical details still need to be worked out, including international trade frameworks and standards that can help countries lower greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep global warming in check. <a href="https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/what" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carbon pricing</a> and <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-can-europe-get-carbon-border-adjustment-right" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">carbon border adjustment taxes</a>, which create incentive for companies to reduce emissions, may be part of it. A consistent and comprehensive set of national energy transition plans will also be needed.</p><p>The global shift to <a href="https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Jan/A-New-World-The-Geopolitics-of-the-Energy-Transformation" target="_blank">clean energy will also have geopolitical implications for countries and regions</a>, and this will have a profound impact on wider international relations. Kerry, with his experience as secretary of state in the Obama administration, and Biden's plan to make the climate envoy position part of the National Security Council, may help mend these relations. In doing so, the U.S. may again join the wider community of countries willing to lead.</p>
- 14 States On Track to Meet Paris Targets - EcoWatch ›
- Biden Vows to Ax Keystone XL if Elected - EcoWatch ›
- Biden Names John Kerry as First-Ever Climate Envoy - EcoWatch ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Maria Caffrey
As we approach the holidays I, like most people, have been reflecting on everything 2020 has given us (or taken away) while starting to look ahead to 2021.
We Need More Than Listening<p>By now we have all become sadly accustomed to the current administration sidelining scientists, most prominently Dr. Anthony Fauci, because the facts they provide do not fit with the political rhetoric of the moment.</p><p>I have <a href="https://www.csldf.org/2019/08/22/csldf-helps-climate-scientist-maria-caffrey-fight-for-scientific-integrity/" target="_blank">my own history</a> of filing a scientific integrity complaint with the National Park Service (which falls under the Department of the Interior) after senior ranking employees attempted to censor one of my scientific reports. I know all too well the damage and pain that these actions cause, not just for the individual scientist, but also because these <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">attacks on science</a> over the last few years have undermined sound, evidence-based decision making.</p><p>President-elect Biden has repeatedly said that he will <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/521638-trump-biden-will-listen-to-the-scientists-if-elected" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">listen to the scientists</a>. While this is certainly a welcome change, listening can only take us so far. This past week Lauren Kurtz from the <a href="https://www.csldf.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Climate Science Legal Defense Fund</a> and my colleague <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/people/gretchen-goldman" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gretchen Goldman</a> published <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ten-steps-that-can-restore-scientific-integrity-in-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an article</a> listing 10 actions the new administration should implement to show their commitment to strengthening government science:</p><ol><li>Clearly prohibit political interference and censorship.</li><li>Protect scientists' communication rights.</li><li>Acknowledge that attempts to violate scientific integrity, even if ultimately not fruitful, are still violations.</li><li>Protect federal scientists' right to provide information to Congress and other lawmakers.</li><li>Commit to incorporating the best science as part of agency decisions.</li><li>Elevate agency scientific integrity policies to have the full force of law.</li><li>Publicly release anonymized information about scientific integrity complaints and their resolutions at every agency.</li><li>Institute an intra-agency workforce, potentially under the White House <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/strengthening-science-and-si-at-ostp.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Office of Science and Technology Policy</a>, to coordinate scientific integrity efforts across agencies, foster discussion of policy improvements, and standardize criteria for policies across agencies.</li><li>Strengthen whistleblower protections.</li><li>Ensure that policies cover all actors who will be dealing with science.</li></ol>
Time for Action<p>I have spoken to many scientists, particularly federal scientists, who are eager to turn the page so they can hurry back to the work they had been doing before this administration, but I urge caution in assuming that things can be "normal" again.</p><p>Before Trump, I naively thought the scientific integrity policies established during the <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/12/19/scientific-integrity-policies-update" target="_blank">Obama administration</a> would be sufficient. I never imagined that any administration could so willfully ignore and attack expert advice and evidence that is intended to protect us and our public lands.</p><p>I have personally witnessed how hard our federal scientists work. They put in long hours with minimal pay (far less that what they could get if they worked in private industry) to pursue one simple goal: to make things better for the nation.</p><p>We need stronger scientific integrity policies to protect these people and their work. But more than that, we need stronger scientific integrity laws because they also benefit society.</p>
By Andrea Germanos
Environmental campaigners stressed the need for the incoming Biden White House to put in place permanent protections for Alaska's Bristol Bay after the Trump administration on Wednesday denied a permit for the proposed Pebble Mine that threatened "lasting harm to this phenomenally productive ecosystem" and death to the area's Indigenous culture.
<div id="da98c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="478a197b7c59c92787c92bec92f1ac39"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1331662923710693376" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Bristol Bay forever, Pebble mine never. #NoPebbleMine #SaveBristolBay https://t.co/CBQ9zuy8A5</div> — Save Bristol Bay (@Save Bristol Bay)<a href="https://twitter.com/SaveBristolBay/statuses/1331662923710693376">1606328156.0</a></blockquote></div>
- Pebble Mine Threatens One of the Last Great Salmon Rivers ... ›
- The Pebble Mine Is Too Toxic Even for the Trump Administration ... ›
- Trump Admin Reverses Obama-Era Restrictions on Pebble Mine ... ›
OlgaMiltsova / iStock / Getty Images Plus
By Gwen Ranniger
In the midst of a pandemic, sales of cleaning products have skyrocketed, and many feel a need to clean more often. Knowing what to look for when purchasing cleaning supplies can help prevent unwanted and dangerous toxics from entering your home.
1. Fragrance – Avoid It<p>One of the fastest ways to narrow down your product options is immediately eliminating any product that promotes a fragrance, or parfum. That scent of "fresh breeze" or lemon might initially smell good, but the fragrance does not last. What does last? The concoction of various undisclosed and unregulated chemicals that created that fragrance.</p><p>Many fragrances contain phthalates, which are linked to many health risks including reproductive problems and cancer.</p>
2. With Bleach? Do Without<p>Going scent-free should have narrowed down your options substantially – now, check the front of the remaining packaging. Any that include ammonia or chlorine bleach ought to go, as these substances are irritating and corrosive to your body. While bleach is commonly known as a powerful disinfectant, there are safer alternatives that you can use in your home, such as sodium borate or hydrogen peroxide.</p><p>While you're at it, check if there are any warnings on the label – "flammable," "use in ventilated area," etc. – if the product is hazardous, that's a red flag and should be avoided.</p>
3. Check the Back Label<p>Flip to the back of the remaining contenders and check out that ingredient list. Less is more, here. Opt for a shorter ingredient list with words you recognize and/or can pronounce.</p><p>You may notice many products do not have ingredient lists – while this doesn't necessarily mean they contain toxic ingredients, transparency is key. Feel free to look up a list online, or stick to products that are open about their ingredients.</p>
4. Ingredients to Avoid<p>We already mentioned that cleaners containing fragrance or parfum, and bleach or ammonia should be avoided, but there are other ingredients to look out for as well.</p><ul><li>Quaternary ammonium "quats" – lung irritants that contribute to asthma and other breathing problems. Also linger on surfaces long after they've been cleaned.</li><li>Parabens – Known hormone disruptor; can contribute to ailments such as cancer</li><li>Triclosan – triclosan and other antibacterial chemicals are registered with the EPA as pesticides. Triclosan is a known hormone disruptor and can also impact your immune system.</li><li>Formaldehyde – Causes irritation of eyes, nose, and throat; studies suggest formaldehyde exposure is linked with certain varieties of cancer. Can be found in products or become a byproduct of chemical reactions in the air.</li></ul>
Cleaning Products and Toxics: The Bottom Line<p>Do your research. There are many cleaning products available, but taking these steps will drastically reduce your options and help keep your home toxic-free. Protecting your home from bacteria and viruses is important, but make sure you do so in a way that doesn't introduce other health risks into the home.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.ehn.org/how-to-shop-for-cleaning-products-while-avoiding-toxics-2648130273.html" target="_blank">Environmental Health News</a>. </em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2649054624#/" target="_self"></a></p>
JasonOndreicka / iStock / Getty Images
Twenty-five years ago, a food called Tofurky made its debut on grocery store shelves. Since then, the tofu-based roast has become a beloved part of many vegetarians' holiday feasts.