GUEST SPEAKER: Good morning.
Thank you for inviting me here today
to speak to you about the liquefied natural gas
facility in Boston Harbor.
Based on my experience as director of the Boston Harbor
Associates, I believe that the risks of this LNG facility
are too high and that a new risk assessment
is needed to properly evaluate these risks.
This morning I'd like to tell you
about the problems with the current risk assessment
and then provide my recommendations for a new risk
assessment going forward.
As you know LNG has a very--
it comes with the possibility of a gas
leak, which could lead to a fire and a large explosion.
Although this happening is fairly unlikely,
the severity of the damages that would happen if it did occur
would be extremely large.
And risks are greater when LNG is
transported through the water.
If a spill occurs in water, it would spread more quickly
and be more difficult to contain.
So we can expect that if a spill did happen in Boston Harbor,
it would be very difficult to manage.
It would quickly spread to the Harbor Islands
and also around the city, and could cause a large explosion
that would not only have major damage on infrastructure
and property, but also could cause
a major loss of human life.
I know that you're all well aware of these risks,
but you probably are assuming that the risk assessment that
was done when the facility was built--
several decades ago-- accurately takes into account these risks.
However, I believe that there are major problems
with that risk assessment.
First of all, the risk assessment
assumes that everything possible to manage these risks
is being done.
It doesn't leave any possibility for human error or negligence,
or any mistakes happening.
However, there's very little evaluation
to ensure that all of these safety measures
are being taken 100% of the time.
There's site visits by the regulatory agency
only several times a year, and these
are announced ahead of time.
So they don't accurately reflect whether the safety measures are
being taken day in and day out.
We know that human error can lead
to major industrial accidents.
Just look at the case of Three Mile Island, where
the accident was made worse by inadequate training
and the plant operators failing to respond to the problem
as it was unfolding and making the problem worse.
So given that we know that human error and negligence can
lead to major accident, I'd like to propose a new risk
assessment that takes these into account.
My recommendation for a new risk assessment
follows a 2-step process, in which the estimation of risk
is separate from the decision making process.
So in the first step, the government--
all of your respective agencies--
with input from the public, would
determine what level of risk it is willing to accept.
For example, is it willing to accept some water pollution
permanently?
What about property damage?
What about loss of life?
What level of risk can you, as a society, tolerate?
It's very important that you involve the public
in determining the level of risk that you're willing to accept.
Not only will this help them feel like they have ownership
in the decision that effects their home,
but it will also help them think about the likelihood of risk
and whether this technology is appropriate.
While I'm sure that they're not necessarily scared
about the risks, but rather that they understand what
might happen with this technology.
So after you've determined what level of risk
you, as a society, are willing to accept,
I would recommend that you hire a group of scientists
to conduct the risk assessment itself,
and to figure out both the harms from a gas
leak that are possible and the likelihood of this occurring.
In addition, it's really important
that as part of this risk assessment,
you assume that some degree of human error will occur
and that safety measures will not be followed all the time.
The scientists can estimate this based on accidents at other LNG
facilities around the world, and what led to these accidents,
and whether or not safety measures were
being followed there.
After the risk assessment is completed,
the government can look at the results
and decide whether it meets the previously set determination
of risk that the society is willing to accept.
And if it does, to go forward and keep the facility open,
and if not, close the facility.
One important thing to note is that if you
do decide to keep the facility open,
it's very important that there is a mechanism in place
for regular monitoring of safety at the plant,
and to ensure that all of the safety
measures that were assumed and the risk assessment are
actually being followed.
Finally, it's very important to compare the alternatives.
LNG, natural gas, is a major source of energy,
especially for heating, in the Boston area.
And if it's found too risky, we need to replace this facility
with another source of energy.
So whether that comes from natural gas
through pipelines, or oil heating,
or some kind of renewable energy,
all of these energy sources have some kind of risk.
So it's important to measure the risks of those as well,
and make sure that we're not replacing the LNG
with something even riskier.
So to conclude, I believe that the risks of this LNG
facility in Boston Harbor are very high,
and that the current risk assessment is inadequate.
I hope you'll follow my recommendations for a new risk
assessment that better takes into account both
the dangers of this technology and the level of risk
that society is willing to accept.
Thank you.