Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Risk Analysis Controversy pp 41–60Cite as

Comparing Risk Assessments for Liquefied Energy Gas Terminals — Some Results

  • Conference paper

Abstract

One of the most challenging problems in decisions concerning the deployment of novel, large-scale technologies is the assessment of the risk to the surrounding population. In particular cases, such as nuclear reactors or liquefied energy gas (LEG) facilities, the political process involved may tend to focus on one particular form of that risk, i.e., the risk to life from catastrophic accidents. This paper examines several different assessments of that type of risk with two main goals in mind:

  1. (i)

    To present and compare the various procedures of risk assessment as applied to liquefied energy gas (LEG) terminal siting, and in doing so to clarify the limits of knowledge and understanding of LEG risks

  2. (ii)

    To quantify and compare the risks at four LEG terminal sites: Eemshaven (Netherlands), Mossmorran (UK), Point Conception (USA), and Wilhelmshaven (West Germany)

Keywords

  • Risk Assessment
  • Storage Tank
  • Point Conception
  • Fault Tree Analysis
  • Vapor Cloud

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Risk Assessment Reports for Eemshaven (NL)

  1. ; van Amerongen, H., Bouma, J.W.J., and Snellink, G. (1978) Evaluatie va de gevaren verbonden aan aanvoer, overslag en opslag van vloeibaar aardgas met betrekking tot een Eemshaven-terminal. Rijswijk, Netherlands: TNO Bureau Industriele Veiligheid.

    Google Scholar 

Risk Assessment Reports for Mossmorran (UK)

  1. : (1979) Mossmorran-Braefoot Bay: Shipping Hazards. Aberdour, UK: Aberdour and Dalgety Bay Joint Action Group.

    Google Scholar 

  2. : C. Cremer and W. Warner (1977) The Hazard and Environmental Impact of the Proposed Shell LNG Plant and Esso Ethylene Plant at Mossmorran, and Export Facilities at Braefoot Bay, Vols. I and II. A Report prepared for Fife Regional Council, Dunfermline District Council and Kircaldy District Council.

    Google Scholar 

Risk Assessment Reports for Point Conception (USA)

  1. : Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1978a) Draft Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Point Conception LNG Project, prepared for California Public Utilities Commission. Cambridge, Mass.: Arthur D. Little, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  2. : Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1978b) LNG Safety. Technical Report 16 of Draft Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Point Conception LNG Project. Cambridge, Mass.: Arthur D. Little, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  3. : Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1978) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. Ill Comments and Appendixes, Western LNG Project FERC/EIS- 0002F. Washington, DC: FERC.

    Google Scholar 

  4. : Science Applications, Inc. (1976) Terminal Risk Assessment Study for Point Conception, California, prepared for Western LNG Terminal Company. La Jolla, California: Science Applications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Risk Assessment Reports for Wilhelmshaven (D)

  1. : Brötz, W. (1978) Sicherheitstechnisches Gutachten zum Planfeststellungver fahren eines Schiffsanlegers vor dem nördlichen Teil des Voslapper Grodens im Norden von Wilhelmshaven. Stuttgart: Institut für Technische Chemie der Universität Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  2. : Krappinger, O. (1978) Abschätzung des Risikos, das Tanker mit gefährlicher Ladung im Jadefahrwasser mit anderen Schiffen kollidieren oder auf Grund laufen. Hamburg: Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt Gm.

    Google Scholar 

  3. : Krappinger, O. (1978) Risikoanalyse: Über die Gefährdung der an den Umschlagebrücken der DFTG und ICI liegenden Schiffe durch den die Anlage passierenden Verkehr auf dem Fahrwasser der Jade. Hamburg: Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt Gm.

    Google Scholar 

  4. : Krappinger, O. (1978) Ergänzung der Risikoanalyse: Über die Gefährdung der an den Umschlagsbrücken der DFTG und ICI liegenden Schiffe durch den die Anlage passierenden Verkehr auf dem Fahrwasser der Jade. Hamburg: Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt Gm.

    Google Scholar 

  5. : (1978) Bericht Transport gefährlicher Güter zu den geplanten DFTG/ICI Umschlagbrücken. Aurich: Wasser- und Schiffahrtsdirektion Nordwest.

    Google Scholar 

Other Risk Assessment Reports (OTH)

  1. : (1978) Risk Assessment Study for the Harbor of Gothenburg, prepared for the Swedish Energy Commission. Franfurt: Battelle-Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  2. : (1978) Risk Assessment Study for an Assumed LNG terminal in the Lysekil Area, prepared for the Swedish Energy Commission. Frankfurt: Battelle Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  3. : (1978) Canvey—An investigation of Potential Hazards from Operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock Area. London: Health and Safety Executive.

    Google Scholar 

  4. : Keeney, R., Kulkarni, R., and Nair, K. (1979) A risk analysis of an LNG terminal. Omega 7:191–205.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. : (1976) Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Oxnard LNG Facilities Draft EIR Appendix B. Los Angeles, California: Socio-Economic Systems, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Reviews of Risk Assessments (REV)

  1. : Hazelwood, R.N., and Philipson, L.L. (1977) Survey of LNG Risk Assessment, prepared for California Public Utilities Commission. Los Angeles, California: Socio-Economic Systems, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  2. : Lewis, H.W. (Chairman)(1978) Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-0400. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. : (1980) Safety Aspects of Liquefied Natural Gas in the Marine Environment, NMAB 354. Washington, DC:. National Academy of Sciences, National Materials Advisory Board.

    Google Scholar 

General Papers (GEN)

  1. : Luce, R.D., and Raiffa, H. (1957) Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  2. : Philipson, L.L. (1978) Safety of LNG systems. Energy Systems 4:135–55.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

    Christoph Mandl & John Lathrop

Authors
  1. Christoph Mandl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Lathrop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Decision Sciences Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 19104, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Howard C. Kunreuther

  2. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361, Laxenburg, Austria

    Eryl V. Ley

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1982 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg/Austria

About this paper

Cite this paper

Mandl, C., Lathrop, J. (1982). Comparing Risk Assessments for Liquefied Energy Gas Terminals — Some Results. In: Kunreuther, H.C., Ley, E.V. (eds) The Risk Analysis Controversy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-81940-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-81940-7_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-81942-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-81940-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

search

Navigation