|
To say the least, I had a sick feeling and was very
upset after reading what information the report contained concerning our
discussion. However, it appears from the way our discussion was
rearranged and/or fabricated in the document and the way some of the
factors and items were omitted or dismissed, that it was a search for
information that did not want to provide an unbiased view of LNG, its
facilities, or the true relationship between ConocoPhillips and the
Nikiski Fire Department.
The print below that is not bold is from the
report. The bold is my response.
“The Captain and most of the department had been
trained at and by Texas A&M”
Most of the department was trained at the PRISM
Facility in Kenai, Alaska, by Texas A&M and Industrial Fire World
Instructors not at Texas A&M.
We had a “worst case” discussion with the Captain.
Jim’s example of a worst case scenario is a catastrophic breach of an LNG
tank within a large diked area with a moderate cross wind and a remote
downwind ignition source resulting in the delayed ignition of an expanded
and moving vapor cloud. He believes that this combination of factors or
others like them could lead to a truly catastrophic event with
implications at a distance from the facility.
The following information did not note during this
discussion that we talked about properties of propane and gasoline and how
that they were different than natural gas or LNG. We specifically
discussed how LNG is not flammable until vaporized and as compared to that
of gasoline or propane where a vapor cloud could be formed and roll across
the room or ground compared to that of LNG which is lighter than air and
will rise. Nor is there any mention of the monitoring equipment that we
employ (and that I offered to show) that we use to help us locate ANY LEL
issues that NFD might be concerned about.
I fail to see how anyone could deduce that LNG is
going to form a significant vapor cloud (in an open atmosphere) that is
going to travel downwind of any significant distance when it is
considerably lighter than air. Even our own tests (at PRISM when training
this year) demonstrated that the vapors traveled very quickly up into the
atmosphere in 10 MPH winds. We even forced the LNG to vaporize more
quickly to watch the reaction upon ignition, and the area that would burn
was just a few feet above the ground and did not carry downwind more than
a few feet.
I also gave the example to the delegation of
responding to a very large natural gas line that had been damaged by a
telephone company backhoe and how that natural gas had escaped into the
atmosphere and the perimeter established around the release was actually
quite small. We were able to make the perimeter small because we had
equipment to monitor the release and also because of the properties of
natural gas. I believe the “expanded and moving vapor cloud” statement
should have been attached to the propane and gasoline comparison and not
LNG.
In my opinion, a large release of LNG from a
damaged storage tank would have an extremely high probability of finding
an ignition source, given all the possible ignition sources that are found
at a facility. There are ignition sources even in the diked areas of an
LNG facility and that any “catastrophic failure of the tank” would create
even more ignition sources due to damage of surrounding equipment (powered
instrumentation, electrical heaters, monitors, etc).
Jim believes that in such a situation there is
little that his Department, or any department, could do other than wait
for the vapors to burn and become too dilute to support fire
Jim believes that a redundant automatic high
expansion foaming system on siteis a necessity to guard against a “worst case” catastrophic event.
It should be mentioned that this discussion was
based on information that the delegation supplied me concerning what type
of training and fire equipment ConocoPhillips would be supplying the small
fire department that would be serving this area. It was suggested that
ConocoPhillips would be providing the fire department with LNG training
and possibly a new truck or two that would have specific use at this
facility. I suggested that the trucks would probably have some type of
high expansion foam capability that would supplement whatever type of fire
protection was at the facility. In 1978, I attended a LNG firefighting
course at Texas A&M and witnessed the use of high expansion foam. It
worked very well (when applied in enough volume and with the proper
equipment) to put out a LNG fire in a pit. My statements about the use of
high expansion foam are based on my Texas A&M experience.
His department does not employ high expansion foam,
nor does the Nikiski LNG facility. Jim thinks that such an automatic foam
system is absolutely essential at any LNG facility and that it should be
coupled with a high expansion foam unit at the appropriate fire
departments.
With all due respect to those who have compiled my
comments into a few short paragraphs, I believe having read this
compilation of information, that I have been misrepresented about my
concerns about dealing with a LNG problem here at the Kenai facility. Let
me say unequivocally, I am confident that I have received the training
needed to work with ConocoPhillips in the unlikely event that a tank did
rupture. The training we received is as important as the training I need
to deal with medical, diving, or confined space emergencies whether at
ConocoPhillips, Agrium, or at a individuals residence. I am trained in
emergency response procedures for far more dangerous fuels than LNG. The
area where I was most misrepresented in the report was re-arranging my
statements into fabrications to represent LNG as being more dangerous than
we know it to be as professional firefighters.
This report also did not include information that
I gave to the delegation concerning ConocoPhillips’ working relationship
with the fire department and how the LNG facility has also provided
valuable support to our department fire fighting operations when we
respond to other facilities and to structure fires at the homes of our
residents. I guess that would be too much to ask. Jim Allemann
|