Oka.qxp 1/7/09 2:56 pm Page 93
Consequences of Liquefied Natural Gas Pool Fires on Water
scenario or an LNG spill from the emerging LNGC with a nominal this comparison study, it has been found that, as a whole, the
breach of 5m
2
, relatively small but non-negligible differences are consequences of thermal hazard analyses are in fairly good agreement
observed in the consequences between the FERC and SNL methods. between the two methods. At least under current circumstances, from
For example, the thermal hazard distances for the 37.5 and 5kW/m
2
the practical viewpoint of versatility to any breach size, the FERC
heat flux levels determined by the FERC method are 7 and 10% method is recommended for pool fire hazard analyses.
longer, respectively, than those determined by the SNL method.
Finally, in the case of the common LNGC with an intentional In performing a consequence analysis for a large-scale LNG pool fire,
maximum breach of 12m
2
, there are significant differences between it should be noted that all current practical methods assume that a
the two methods. In this case, the LNG spill is approximately single, coherent pool fire can be maintained for very large pool
classified into the instantaneous spill type, so that, as mentioned diameters. However, this assumption would not be considered to be
earlier, it is almost impossible to apply the SNL spread model to this valid due to the inability of air to reach the interior of a fire and
spill type. In this way, for example, the thermal hazard distance for maintain combustion on such a large LNG pool.
3,6
Instead of this, the
the 5kW/m
2
heat flux levels determined by the SNL method is 25% single flame would break up into several smaller, shorter flames at
longer than that determined by the FERC method. some very large size. It was pointed out that such break-up behaviour
could reduce thermal hazard distances by a factor of two to three.
3
Concluding Remarks However, the limiting diameter for this break-up for large-scale LNG
In this short article, consequence analyses of pool fire hazards pool fires on water is currently unknown due to the lack of
involving a large-scale LNG spill over water from a breached tank of experiments.
6
Therefore, due to the assumption of a single, coherent
common and emerging larger LNGCs were conducted by use of the pool fire, the hazard distances shown in the current analyses may be
FERC method under the scenarios used in the SNL studies.
3,8
Through considered as rather conservative estimates. ■
1. Fay JA, Model of spills and fires from LNG and oil tankers, NM, 2004. 2006;A132:119–40.
J Hazard Mater, 2003;B96:171–88. 4. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Notice of availability 7. Oka H, Ota S, Evaluation of consequence assessment
2. ABS Consulting Inc., Consequence assessment methods for of staff’s responses to comments on the consequence methods for pool fires on water involving large spills from
incidents involving releases from liquefied natural gas carriers, assessment methods for incidents involving releases from liquefied natural gas carriers, J Mar Sci Technol,
FERC04C40196, 2004. liquefied natural gas carriers, Docket No. AD04-6-000, 2004. 2008;13:178–88.
3. Hightower M, Gritzo L, Luketa-Hanlin A, et al., Guidance on 5. Pitblado RM, Baik J, Raghunathan V, LNG decision making 8. Luketa A, Hightower MM, Attaway S, Breach and safety
risk analysis and safety implications of a large liquefied approaches compared, J Hazard Mater, 2006;130:148–54. analysis of spills over water from large liquefied natural gas
natural gas (LNG) spill over water, SANDIA REPORT, 6. Luketa-Hanlin A, A review of large-scale LNG spills: carriers, SANDIA REPORT, SAND2008-3153, Sandia National
SAND2004-6258, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, Experiments and modeling, J Hazard Mater, Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 2008.
4!.+3&/24(%/),'!3).$53429
5"()NTERNATIONALDESIGNSANDBUILDS
s/FFSHORECHEMICALANDACIDTANKS
s(ELIFUEL4ANKS
s#RYOGENICTANKSFORARGONANDNITROGEN
sAND&OOT)3/
4ANKS
s4ANKSCERTIlEDTO$.6
%.
4EL  s &AX 
%MAILTANKS UBHCOUK
WWWUBHCOUK
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108