1
00:00:10,104 --> 00:00:11,270
GUEST SPEAKER: Good morning.

2
00:00:11,270 --> 00:00:12,580
Thank you for
inviting me here today

3
00:00:12,580 --> 00:00:14,620
to speak to you about
the liquefied natural gas

4
00:00:14,620 --> 00:00:16,630
facility in Boston Harbor.

5
00:00:16,630 --> 00:00:19,300
Based on my experience as
director of the Boston Harbor

6
00:00:19,300 --> 00:00:22,690
Associates, I believe that
the risks of this LNG facility

7
00:00:22,690 --> 00:00:25,000
are too high and that
a new risk assessment

8
00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:27,940
is needed to properly
evaluate these risks.

9
00:00:27,940 --> 00:00:29,440
This morning I'd
like to tell you

10
00:00:29,440 --> 00:00:31,660
about the problems with
the current risk assessment

11
00:00:31,660 --> 00:00:33,940
and then provide my
recommendations for a new risk

12
00:00:33,940 --> 00:00:37,030
assessment going forward.

13
00:00:37,030 --> 00:00:41,340
As you know LNG has a very--

14
00:00:41,340 --> 00:00:42,940
it comes with the
possibility of a gas

15
00:00:42,940 --> 00:00:46,480
leak, which could lead to a
fire and a large explosion.

16
00:00:46,480 --> 00:00:48,880
Although this happening
is fairly unlikely,

17
00:00:48,880 --> 00:00:51,490
the severity of the damages that
would happen if it did occur

18
00:00:51,490 --> 00:00:53,820
would be extremely large.

19
00:00:53,820 --> 00:00:55,690
And risks are
greater when LNG is

20
00:00:55,690 --> 00:00:58,727
transported through the water.

21
00:00:58,727 --> 00:01:01,060
If a spill occurs in water,
it would spread more quickly

22
00:01:01,060 --> 00:01:02,950
and be more
difficult to contain.

23
00:01:02,950 --> 00:01:06,549
So we can expect that if a spill
did happen in Boston Harbor,

24
00:01:06,549 --> 00:01:08,090
it would be very
difficult to manage.

25
00:01:08,090 --> 00:01:09,964
It would quickly spread
to the Harbor Islands

26
00:01:09,964 --> 00:01:14,440
and also around the city, and
could cause a large explosion

27
00:01:14,440 --> 00:01:17,320
that would not only have
major damage on infrastructure

28
00:01:17,320 --> 00:01:19,300
and property, but
also could cause

29
00:01:19,300 --> 00:01:22,119
a major loss of human life.

30
00:01:22,119 --> 00:01:24,160
I know that you're all
well aware of these risks,

31
00:01:24,160 --> 00:01:26,618
but you probably are assuming
that the risk assessment that

32
00:01:26,618 --> 00:01:28,870
was done when the
facility was built--

33
00:01:28,870 --> 00:01:32,560
several decades ago-- accurately
takes into account these risks.

34
00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:34,810
However, I believe that
there are major problems

35
00:01:34,810 --> 00:01:37,246
with that risk assessment.

36
00:01:37,246 --> 00:01:38,620
First of all, the
risk assessment

37
00:01:38,620 --> 00:01:42,010
assumes that everything
possible to manage these risks

38
00:01:42,010 --> 00:01:43,030
is being done.

39
00:01:43,030 --> 00:01:47,150
It doesn't leave any possibility
for human error or negligence,

40
00:01:47,150 --> 00:01:49,810
or any mistakes happening.

41
00:01:49,810 --> 00:01:51,940
However, there's very
little evaluation

42
00:01:51,940 --> 00:01:54,460
to ensure that all of
these safety measures

43
00:01:54,460 --> 00:01:56,720
are being taken
100% of the time.

44
00:01:56,720 --> 00:01:59,080
There's site visits by
the regulatory agency

45
00:01:59,080 --> 00:02:00,940
only several times
a year, and these

46
00:02:00,940 --> 00:02:03,310
are announced ahead of time.

47
00:02:03,310 --> 00:02:06,010
So they don't accurately reflect
whether the safety measures are

48
00:02:06,010 --> 00:02:08,350
being taken day in and day out.

49
00:02:08,350 --> 00:02:09,789
We know that human
error can lead

50
00:02:09,789 --> 00:02:11,560
to major industrial accidents.

51
00:02:11,560 --> 00:02:14,440
Just look at the case of
Three Mile Island, where

52
00:02:14,440 --> 00:02:17,680
the accident was made worse
by inadequate training

53
00:02:17,680 --> 00:02:21,670
and the plant operators failing
to respond to the problem

54
00:02:21,670 --> 00:02:24,680
as it was unfolding and
making the problem worse.

55
00:02:24,680 --> 00:02:28,990
So given that we know that
human error and negligence can

56
00:02:28,990 --> 00:02:31,810
lead to major accident, I'd
like to propose a new risk

57
00:02:31,810 --> 00:02:33,700
assessment that takes
these into account.

58
00:02:36,370 --> 00:02:38,230
My recommendation for
a new risk assessment

59
00:02:38,230 --> 00:02:41,560
follows a 2-step process, in
which the estimation of risk

60
00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:44,570
is separate from the
decision making process.

61
00:02:44,570 --> 00:02:46,700
So in the first step,
the government--

62
00:02:46,700 --> 00:02:48,760
all of your
respective agencies--

63
00:02:48,760 --> 00:02:50,560
with input from
the public, would

64
00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:53,590
determine what level of risk
it is willing to accept.

65
00:02:53,590 --> 00:02:59,290
For example, is it willing to
accept some water pollution

66
00:02:59,290 --> 00:02:59,860
permanently?

67
00:02:59,860 --> 00:03:01,360
What about property damage?

68
00:03:01,360 --> 00:03:03,070
What about loss of life?

69
00:03:03,070 --> 00:03:06,992
What level of risk can you,
as a society, tolerate?

70
00:03:06,992 --> 00:03:08,950
It's very important that
you involve the public

71
00:03:08,950 --> 00:03:12,324
in determining the level of risk
that you're willing to accept.

72
00:03:12,324 --> 00:03:14,740
Not only will this help them
feel like they have ownership

73
00:03:14,740 --> 00:03:17,350
in the decision that
effects their home,

74
00:03:17,350 --> 00:03:21,610
but it will also help them think
about the likelihood of risk

75
00:03:21,610 --> 00:03:23,790
and whether this
technology is appropriate.

76
00:03:23,790 --> 00:03:25,990
While I'm sure that they're
not necessarily scared

77
00:03:25,990 --> 00:03:28,540
about the risks, but rather
that they understand what

78
00:03:28,540 --> 00:03:31,670
might happen with
this technology.

79
00:03:31,670 --> 00:03:33,640
So after you've determined
what level of risk

80
00:03:33,640 --> 00:03:36,280
you, as a society,
are willing to accept,

81
00:03:36,280 --> 00:03:38,620
I would recommend that you
hire a group of scientists

82
00:03:38,620 --> 00:03:40,780
to conduct the risk
assessment itself,

83
00:03:40,780 --> 00:03:43,160
and to figure out both
the harms from a gas

84
00:03:43,160 --> 00:03:47,794
leak that are possible and the
likelihood of this occurring.

85
00:03:47,794 --> 00:03:49,210
In addition, it's
really important

86
00:03:49,210 --> 00:03:50,960
that as part of this
risk assessment,

87
00:03:50,960 --> 00:03:53,780
you assume that some degree
of human error will occur

88
00:03:53,780 --> 00:03:56,750
and that safety measures will
not be followed all the time.

89
00:03:56,750 --> 00:03:59,930
The scientists can estimate this
based on accidents at other LNG

90
00:03:59,930 --> 00:04:02,480
facilities around the world,
and what led to these accidents,

91
00:04:02,480 --> 00:04:04,940
and whether or not
safety measures were

92
00:04:04,940 --> 00:04:07,235
being followed there.

93
00:04:07,235 --> 00:04:09,590
After the risk
assessment is completed,

94
00:04:09,590 --> 00:04:11,990
the government can
look at the results

95
00:04:11,990 --> 00:04:14,870
and decide whether it meets the
previously set determination

96
00:04:14,870 --> 00:04:18,380
of risk that the society
is willing to accept.

97
00:04:18,380 --> 00:04:22,390
And if it does, to go forward
and keep the facility open,

98
00:04:22,390 --> 00:04:25,940
and if not, close the facility.

99
00:04:25,940 --> 00:04:29,330
One important thing
to note is that if you

100
00:04:29,330 --> 00:04:31,220
do decide to keep
the facility open,

101
00:04:31,220 --> 00:04:33,470
it's very important that
there is a mechanism in place

102
00:04:33,470 --> 00:04:36,590
for regular monitoring
of safety at the plant,

103
00:04:36,590 --> 00:04:38,180
and to ensure that
all of the safety

104
00:04:38,180 --> 00:04:40,429
measures that were assumed
and the risk assessment are

105
00:04:40,429 --> 00:04:43,880
actually being followed.

106
00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:47,280
Finally, it's very important
to compare the alternatives.

107
00:04:47,280 --> 00:04:50,280
LNG, natural gas, is a
major source of energy,

108
00:04:50,280 --> 00:04:52,890
especially for heating,
in the Boston area.

109
00:04:52,890 --> 00:04:55,490
And if it's found too risky, we
need to replace this facility

110
00:04:55,490 --> 00:04:57,240
with another source of energy.

111
00:04:57,240 --> 00:04:58,940
So whether that comes
from natural gas

112
00:04:58,940 --> 00:05:02,210
through pipelines,
or oil heating,

113
00:05:02,210 --> 00:05:04,070
or some kind of
renewable energy,

114
00:05:04,070 --> 00:05:06,507
all of these energy sources
have some kind of risk.

115
00:05:06,507 --> 00:05:08,840
So it's important to measure
the risks of those as well,

116
00:05:08,840 --> 00:05:12,500
and make sure that we're
not replacing the LNG

117
00:05:12,500 --> 00:05:15,050
with something even riskier.

118
00:05:15,050 --> 00:05:18,290
So to conclude, I believe
that the risks of this LNG

119
00:05:18,290 --> 00:05:21,290
facility in Boston
Harbor are very high,

120
00:05:21,290 --> 00:05:23,990
and that the current risk
assessment is inadequate.

121
00:05:23,990 --> 00:05:26,510
I hope you'll follow my
recommendations for a new risk

122
00:05:26,510 --> 00:05:29,000
assessment that better
takes into account both

123
00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:31,670
the dangers of this technology
and the level of risk

124
00:05:31,670 --> 00:05:33,940
that society is
willing to accept.

125
00:05:33,940 --> 00:05:35,670
Thank you.