A new federal report finds that larger liquefied natural gas tankers won’t require larger hazard zones than those in place for existing carriers.

The study, conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy and released Friday, suggests larger LNG ships would leak fuel at a greater rate and have hotter, longer-burning fires in the event of an accident. But researchers still believe the most significant danger to people nearby would remain within the hazard zones established in the 2004 Sandia LNG report.

The study focused on ships capable of carrying as much as 265,000 cubic meters of LNG. It determined that spills would have thermal radiation zones 7 to 8 percent greater than those for existing carriers. The estimates were based on a tanker suffering a five cubic meter breach at a near-shore operation like the one proposed by Jordan Cove Energy Project for Coos Bay’s North Spit. The local project is proposing to use tankers that carry between 135,000 and 148,000 cubic meters.

The report determined that even with the added heat source, a 256,000 cubic meter LNG tanker still would be a serious threat to people within 500 meters and a significant threat to a distance of about a mile.

The study also determined that a vapor dispersion cloud for a larger ship  could cover an area between 1.7 and 2 miles. It noted that it would be unlikely for a cloud to grow to such a size, however, since the fuel would probably start burning from a spark at the breach site before a cloud could get that big. The concern about a cloud is that it would eventually ignite and damage a wider area.

The new findings won’t impact the Jordan Cove project as proposed, though it would play into the energy company’s future plans.

Although the slip proposed for the North Spit could berth a 217,000 cubic meter LNG tanker, there are no immediate plans to do so, said Jordan Cove Project Manager Bob Braddock.

Braddock said the company has requested approval from the U.S. Coast Guard to run ships with tanks as large as 148,000 cubic meters. He said it was possible ships with 160,000 tanks could call on Coos Bay, but anything larger would require the deepening of the Coos Bay shipping channel. And any ship with tanks larger than 148,000 cubic meters would need to be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard with the new Sandia findings in mind, Braddock said.

He does not anticipate having those discussions any time soon.

“We don’t see the very largest ship being optimal for the route,” Braddock said.

Larger vessels are primarily used for long-distance routes with large import terminals, such as those between the Middle East and the Gulf Coast, he said.

Braddock said he hadn’t read the report, though he wasn’t surprised by the findings.

Neither was LNG opponent Jody McCaffree, who has insisted that LNG tankers are clearly a risk within the first mile of an accident.

“This report just kind of confirmed for me what the scientists have been saying all along,” the North Bend woman said. “The more that is spilled out, the bigger the hazard.”

She did question the finding somewhat, saying tests are based on the behavior of smaller amounts of LNG and then calculated to larger figures.

“The thing is they don’t really know,” McCaffree said.

The study used a solid flame model to determine the behavior of a fire following an LNG tanker breach. It did not create a fire of the magnitude associated with such an incident, though one is in the planning stages.

Braddock said the Department of Energy has proposed a larger scale test later this year that would simulate attacks on an LNG container ship.

(Staff writer Alexander Rich covers Coos Bay issues for The World. He can be reached by calling 269-1222, ext. 234; or by e-mailing to arich@theworld-link.com.)