Building ‘essential structures' for LNG in tsunami zone?


Thursday, March 01, 2007 | 2 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font | Submit your news
Q: According to a map in the Coos Bay Public Library, the liquefied natural gas terminal proposed by Jordan Cove Energy Project is in a tsunami zone. I want to know if Oregon law prohibits building either a fire station or a facility that deals with hazardous materials in a tsunami zone.

A: On the first point, yes. Oregon law prohibits the construction of fire stations and other “essential structures” in a tsunami zone. When it comes to LNG terminals, however, the code is “not real clear on that.”

That was the response from David Martin, a policy staff member in the Salem office of Sen. Joanne Verger, D-Coos Bay. Verger is the co-chairwoman of the Emergency Preparedness and Ocean Policy Committee, so her staff is knowledgeable about tsunami zone protocols.

“There is a statute that says schools, critical care centers, and police and fire stations cannot be constructed in a tsunami zone,” Martin said. “But an LNG terminal is kind of in a gray area.”

The code Martin was referring to, ORS455.446 and ORS455.447, addresses planning and facility designing for tsunami hazards. It mandates the developer of a hazardous facility “shall consult with the State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries for assistance in determining the impact of possible tsunamis on the proposed development and for assistance in preparing methods to mitigate risk at the site of a potential tsunami.”

Whether an LNG terminal would be considered a hazardous facility, however, is not explicitly apparent.

Don Lewis, a DOGAMI associate director of geological surveying and services, said the matter is irrelevant, because oversight of the Coos County terminal falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

“We don't have teeth,” he said.

But despite the ambiguity about DOGAMI's role, Lewis said several staff members in his department were consulted by Jordan Cove.

“We do have an involvement in the project and we do feel our comments are being taken into consideration,” he said.

Those issues include the potential impacts of wave inundation and severe erosion following a tsunami.

Jordan Cove Project Manager Bob Braddock said those concerns are being addressed with a simple solution.

Each component of the facility, from the compressors to the co-generation plant, will be constructed at a minimum elevation of 55 feet. The shoreline along the North Spit is situated about 20 feet above sea level, so additional fill material will be used in design plans.

As part of the FERC application process, Jordan Cove continues to produce engineering design reviews that take into account seismic events and their impact on the facility. These studies, as well as an emergency response plan, will be vetted by FERC before project approval.

According to FERC Project Manager Paul Friedman, the design reviews would not be available for public inspection if Jordan Cove decides to include them in the Critical Energy Infrastructure Information section of Resource Report No. 13.

To learn more about the FERC application process, those interested can visit the commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov. The Jordan Cove docket number is PF06-25. A complete version of the Oregon code is available at www.leg.state.or.us/ors.
Tags »
Previous

Have you checked out The World Link Forums?

Comments

The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines

Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Comment Policy

The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.

Please follow these basic rules:

  • No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
  • No deliberately false information.
  • No obscenity or racially offensive language.
  • No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
  • No information that invades another person's privacy.
  • No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.

Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.

The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.

Close Guidelines

BC wrote on Mar 2, 2007 5:59 AM:

It's interesting that this concern is brought up on the same page that is touting a new airport being built in the same tsunami zone. I personally wish that the LNG facility is built and it can maybe, just maybe help Coos Bay come out of being what it is, a complete economic wasteland that only exists on public assistance!

Just An Observer wrote on Mar 1, 2007 6:14 PM:

We dealt with the biggest tsunami since whites settled the Oregon Coast when in 1964, the Good Friday earthquake devastated Anchorage and other smaller towns. That is the biggest recorded earthquake of all time. The tsunami took out Crescent City but our ocean side of the North Spit held up nicely. All we had was driftwood and Japanese glass ball floats to collect! Zero damage here folks. Building the LNG facility with additional elevation guarantees it will be safe no matter what kind of earthquake-related tsunami we get. Now if the Big One, the 5 minute Cascadia Subduction quake hits, it won't matter what is done with the LNG plant or anything else. This whole area will be nothing but rubble like Berlin 1945. If the environmentalists are going to worry about that, then they should advocate a policy of immediate evacuation of the entire coast with all people relocated inland past the point the quake waves would hit. Obviously no one will recommend such a policy that would run to a higher cost than the Iraq quagmire since we have a "take our chances" policy with regards to long term risk. If we won't evacuate from the coast entirely and since we need additional infrastructure for LNG imports, I say build the plant and if the Big One hits before we're into the fusion power age, the wind power age, the wave power age, the solar power age or whatever-the-heck-is-better power age, then we simply got unlucky. On the other hand if the Big One doesn't hit for 50 years, we'll have the new power sources up and running, the LNG facility will be closed and we'll have had the intervening years to work with for energy imports. Risk-reward calculations are in favor of the LNG plant being built right where it is planned. My only question is why the secrecy on design reviews. Does someone think an Al-Qaeda nuke sub carrying Special Ops forces is going to sail into Coos Bay and blow up the LNG plant? It would take an effort that only a modern military could make to destroy an LNG facility like the one planned for here. Those facilities are built like a battleship! Once again the Bush-era politics of fear raise their ugly head and unneeded secrecy at a time when full disclosure is needed takes place. An informed public is not going to be a fearful public.


*Member ID:
*Password:
 

Not already registered?

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!



*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Would you like to be added to our mailing lists?
Daily Headlines
Breaking News
Special Offers
 
Advanced Search
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Blogroll

Most Popular

Polls

» View Past Poll Results
» Suggest a Poll

Marketplace

Special Sections

More Special Sections