The Human Factors behind Inherently Safer Design of LNG Liquefaction Terminals

Natural gas is a major source of energy for many across the globe.  With increased use in rapidly expanding markets such as Asia and Latin America, energy providers are striving to export natural gas through liquefaction terminals in the United States.  At the forefront of the discussion is incorporating liquefaction trains into already existing import terminals and/or construction of new facilities.  With FERC approval a requisite goal, numerous terminals are vying to be first to market in the global export business.  Central to FERC approval is the impact such a facility would have on the surrounding community and environment. Many facilities destined for liquefaction are currently import terminals that will be modified to begin exporting LNG via maritime routes. The very nature of LNG is a cold dense vapor that has the potential to travel large distances and potentially impact off-site targets beyond property boundaries. These vapor clouds may lead to flash fires, explosions and nauseous vapors impacting the local community or neighboring facilities.

Many preventative and mitigative measures are employed in and around these facilities to reduce the extent of the impact posed by an accidental release. The rub is a human factor problem of avoiding an inherently safer design approach to a facility. A standard protocol is to mitigate consequences rather than put forth a superior design for engineering the facility. This saves money on engineering and design at the expense of only providing a single possible prevention/mitigation technique. Historically, even with the best mitigation techniques, errors occur that produce disastrous results.

This paper will explore the human factors decision process that leads the industry to circumvent the desire to design and engineer a facility that is safe by its very nature. The trials and tribulations of outcomes that transpire from such decisions and attendant extensive work necessary to be performed will be explored. An evaluation to eliminate the process hazard in the design stage and using mitigation techniques as a last savior will be discussed.