Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0002-0483
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-11-30T05:00Z

Impingement
and
Entrainment
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
Presented
by:

Carey
A.
Johnston,
P.
E.

U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Water
Washington,
DC
Presented
to:

NOAA
National
Workshop
on
LNG
and
Related
Facilities
Silver
Spring,
MD
July
20,
2004
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
2
Presentation
Overview
°
Overview
of
LNG
import
terminals
and
potential
impingement
and
entrainment
of
aquatic
organisms.

°
Overview
of
U.
S.
EPA's
CWA
§
316(
b)
regulations
and
potential
applicability
to
LNG
import
terminals.

°
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals.

­
Onshore
­
Offshore
°
Questions/
Thoughts?
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
3
°
Worldwide
there
are
currently
17
LNG
export
terminals
and
40
LNG
import
terminals
with
many
more
planned.

World
Wide
LNG
Import/
Export
Industry
°
LNG
import
terminals
exist
in
Japan,
South
Korea
and
Europe,
as
well
as
five
in
the
United
States.
Dominion
Cove
Point,
MD
LNG
Import
Terminal
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
4
°
Interest
in
LNG
imports
has
been
rekindled
by:

­
higher
U.
S.
natural
gas
prices
in
recent
years,
and
­
technological
advances
that
have
lowered
costs
for
liquefaction,
re­
gasification,
shipping,
and
storing
of
LNG.

°
Net
LNG
imports
are
estimated
to
increase
from
0.2
trillion
cubic
feet
in
2002
to
2.2
and
4.8
trillion
cubic
feet
in
2010
and
2025,
respectively
(
DOE,
2004).

°
One
industry
estimate
is
that
10
to
12
LNG
import
terminals
will
be
built
in
the
U.
S.
within
the
decade
with
an
investment
of
more
than
$
5
billion
(
World
Energy,
2004).

Why
the
renewed
interest
in
LNG?
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
5
How
Much
Natural
Gas
Is
Out
There?
Source:
FERC
 
LNG
supply
growing
 
Multiple
LNG
supply
proposals
announced
 
Long
term
LNG
supply
outlook
robust
Global
LNG
Supply
WORLD
PROVED
RESERVES
2002:

6,270
TCF
NORTH
AMERICA
RESERVES
4%
Existing
Under
Construction
Proposed
Global
LNG
Supply
Facilities
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
6
FERC
Office
of
Energy
Projects
6
Existing
Terminals
with
Approved
Expansions
A.
Everett,
MA
:
1.035
Bcfd
(
Tractebel
 
DOMAC)

B.
Cove
Point,
MD
:
1.0
Bcfd
(
Dominion
 
Cove
Point
LNG)

C.
Elba
Island,
GA
:
1.2
Bcfd
(
El
Paso
 
Southern
LNG)

D.
Lake
Charles,
LA
:
1.2
Bcfd
(
Southern
Union
 
Trunkline
LNG)

Approved
Terminals
1.
Hackberry,
LA
:
1.5
Bcfd,
(
Sempra
Energy)

2.
Port
Pelican:
1.6
Bcfd,
(
Chevron
Texaco)

3.
Bahamas
:
0.84
Bcfd,
(
AES
Ocean
Express)*

4.
Gulf
of
Mexico:
0.5
Bcfd,
(
El
Paso
Energy
Bridge
GOM,
LLC)

5.
Bahamas
:
0.83
Bcfd,
(
Calypso
Tractebel)*

Proposed
Terminals
and
Expansions
 
FERC
6.
Freeport,
TX
:
1.5
Bcfd,
(
Cheniere
/
Freeport
LNG
Dev.)

7.
Fall
River,
MA
:
0.8
Bcfd,
(
Weaver's
Cove
Energy)

8.
Long
Beach,
CA
:
0.7
Bcfd,
(
SES/
Mitsubishi)

9.
Corpus
Christi,
TX
:
2.6
Bcfd,
(
Cheniere
LNG
Partners)

10.
Sabine,
LA
:
2.6
Bcfd
(
Cheniere
LNG)

11.
Corpus
Christi,
TX
:
1.0
Bcfd
(
Vista
Del
Sol/
ExxonMobil)

12.
Sabine,
TX
:
1.0
Bcfd
(
Golden
Pass/
ExxonMobil)

13.
Logan
Township,
NJ
:
1.2
Bcfd
(
Crown
Landing
LNG
 
BP)

14.
Lake
Charles,
LA:
0.6
Bcfd
(
Southern
Union
 
Trunkline
LNG)

15.
Bahamas
:
0.5
Bcfd,
(
Seafarer
­
El
Paso/
FPL
)

16.
Corpus
Christi,
TX:
1.0
Bcfd
(
Occidental
Energy
Ventures)

17.
Providence,
RI
:
0.5
Bcfd
(
Keyspan
&
BG
LNG)

Proposed
Terminals
 
Coast
Guard
18.
California
Offshore:
1.5
Bcfd,
(
Cabrillo
Port
 
BHP
Billiton)

19.
Louisiana
Offshore
:
1.0
Bcfd
(
Gulf
Landing
 
Shell)

20.
So.
California
Offshore
:
0.5
Bcfd,
(
Crystal
Energy)

21.
Louisiana
Offshore
:
1.0
Bcfd
(
McMoRan
Exp.)

22.
Gulf
of
Mexico:
n/
a
(
Compass
Port
­
ConocoPhillips)

Planned
Terminals
and
Expansions
23.
Brownsville,
TX
:
n/
a,
(
Cheniere
LNG
Partners)

24.
Mobile
Bay,
AL:
1.0
Bcfd,
(
ExxonMobil)

25.
Somerset,
MA
:
0.65
Bcfd
(
Somerset
LNG)

26.
Belmar,
NJ
Offshore
:
n/
a
(
El
Paso
Global)

27.
Altamira,
Tamulipas
:
1.12
Bcfd,
(
Shell)

28.
Baja
California,
MX
:
1.0
Bcfd,
(
Sempra
&
Shell)

29.
Baja
California
­
Offshore
:
1.4
Bcfd,
(
Chevron
Texaco)

30.
California
­
Offshore
:
0.5
Bcfd,
(
Chevron
Texaco)

31.
St.
John,
NB
:
0.5
Bcfd,
(
Canaport
 
Irving
Oil)

32.
Point
Tupper,
NS
1.0
Bcf/
d
(
Bear
Head
LNG
­
Access
Northeast
Energy)

33.
Searsport,
ME
:
n/
a
34.
St.
Lawrence,
QC
:
n/
a
(
TCPL
and/
or
Gaz
Met)

35.
Lázaro
Cárdenas,
MX
:
0.5
Bcfd
(
Tractebel)

36.
Gulf
of
Mexico
:
1.0
Bcfd
(
ExxonMobil)

37.
Mobile
Bay,
AL:
1.0
Bcfd
(
Cheniere
LNG
Partners)

38.
Cherry
Point,
WA:
0.5
Bcfd
(
Cherry
Point
Energy
LLC)

39.
Cove
Point,
MD
:
0.8
Bcfd
(
Dominion)

40.
Port
Arthur,
TX:
1.5
Bcfd
(
Sempra)

*
US
pipeline
approved;
LNG
terminal
pending
in
Bahamas
Existing
and
Proposed
North
American
LNG
Terminals
May
2004
Office
of
Energy
Projects
A
C
1
3
5
2
4
31
7
26
15
6
23
27
9
18
8
25
21
20
32
34
33
35
19
28
29
11
36
10
12
17
13
B
30
24
14
38
39
16
37
22
40D
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
7
°
Re­
gasification
(
vaporization)
process
of
LNG
is
an
endothermic
process
and
requires
a
heat
source.

°
Typically,
LNG
is
pumped
through
some
heating
system,

where
it
absorbs
heat
and
vaporizes
into
natural
gas.

°
Some
vaporization
systems
use
significant
amounts
of
oncethrough
warming
waters
as
the
heat
source
(
80
to
200
MGD).

°
Aquatic
organisms
(
including
eggs
and
larvae)
may
be
impinged
or
entrained
in
these
water
intakes.

Entrainment
&
Impingement
Potential
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
8
Entrainment
&
Impingement
Potential
Dude,
bummer
situation
Hmmm,
is
this
a
warming
or
cooling
water
intake
Screen
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
9
°
The
Clean
Water
Act
(
§
316(
b))
requires
controls
on
cooling
water
intake
structures
(
CWIS)
to
reduce
adverse
environmental
impacts
at
industrial
facilities.

"
Any
standard
established
pursuant
to
section
1311
of
this
title
or
section
1316
of
this
title
[
section
301
or
306
of
the
Clean
Water
Act]
and
applicable
to
a
point
source
must
require
that
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact."

°
Only
limitation
on
water
intake
in
the
Clean
Water
Act.

°
Only
use
of
the
phrase
"
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact."

°
Note:
CWA
§
316(
a)
regulates
thermal
discharges.

EPA
CWA
§
316(
b)
Regulations
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
10
°
Cooling
water
intake
structure
(
CWIS)
means
the
total
physical
structure
and
any
associated
constructed
waterways
used
to
withdraw
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.,
provided
that
at
least
25
percent
of
the
water
withdrawn
is
used
for
cooling
purposes.

°
The
cooling
water
intake
structure
extends
from
the
point
at
which
water
is
withdrawn
from
the
surface
water
source
to
the
first
intake
pump
or
series
of
pumps.

°
CWI
regulations
may
affect
a
variety
of
NPDES
permit
holders
(
e.
g.,

power
plants,
manufacturers).

°
EPA
is
under
a
court
order
to
propose
the
last
of
three
316(
b)

regulations
by
November
1,
2004,
with
a
finalization
date
of
June
1,

2006.
(
More
info
at:
www.
epa.
gov/
waterscience/
316b/
index.
html)

EPA
CWA
§
316(
b)
Regulations
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
11
°
The
CWA
§
316(
b)
Phase
I
(
new
facility)
rule
applies
to
new
onshore
facilities,
including
new
onshore
LNG
import
terminals,
that:

(
1)
use
cooling
water
intake
structures
to
withdraw
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.;

(
2)
are
required
to
obtain
an
NPDES
permit;

(
3)
have
a
design
intake
flow
of
greater
than
2
MGD;
and
(
4)
use
at
least
25
percent
of
water
withdrawn
for
cooling
purposes
(
see
40
CFR
125.81)

°
EPA
is
reviewing
new
offshore
LNG
import
terminals
and
existing
onshore
LNG
import
terminals
as
part
of
the
Phase
III
§
316(
b)
rule.

LNG
Import
Terminals
&
CWA
§
316(
b)
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
12
°
For
many
LNG
import
terminals
most
or
all
of
the
surface
water
intakes
are
used
for
the
re­
gasification
process,
an
endothermic
process,
and
are
not
consider
"
water
withdrawn
for
cooling
purposes."

°
If
a
new
onshore
LNG
import
terminal
uses
less
than
25
percent
of
its
water
for
cooling
purposes
or
does
not
meet
the
2
MGD
intake
flow
threshold,
the
§
316(
b)
Phase
I
new
facility
rule
specifies
that
the
new
facility
must
meet
§
316(
b)
requirements
as
specified
by
the
NPDES
permit
authority
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
using
best
professional
judgment
(
see
40
CFR
125.80(
c)).

°
See
the
following
April
2004
EPA
memo
for
more
details
on
how
the
§
316(
b)
Phase
I
new
facility
rule
applies
to
new
onshore
LNG
import
terminals:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
npdes/
pubs/
LNG_
clarification_
memo.
pdf
LNG
Import
Terminals
&
CWA
316(
b)
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
13
°
Since
the
1970s,
none
of
the
four
existing
continental
onshore
U.
S.
LNG
import
terminals
use
surface
water
for
warming
or
cooling
purposes,
only
as
an
emergency
backup
source
to
their
firewater
systems.

°
The
EcoElectrica
facility
in
Puerto
Rico
does
use
surface
water
for
makeup
and
discharges
blowdown
for
the
on­
site
power
plant
cooling
tower,
but
does
not
use
surface
water
for
LNG
processing
(
warming
or
cooling).
The
EcoElectrica
facility
integrates
LNG
vaporization
with
its
power
plant
operations
(
see
next
slide).

I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
­
Onshore
Dominion
LNG
Import
Terminal,
Cove
Point,
MD
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
14
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
15
°
Some
new
facilities
are
also
proposing
to
use
waste
heat
from
nearby
industrial
facilities
for
their
re­
gasification
(
e.
g.,
Ingleside
Energy
Center
LNG
Import
Terminal,
Corpus
Christi,
TX).

°
This
integration
is
a
`
win­
win'
solution
as
it
provides
a
resource
(
cold
water
from
LNG
import
terminal)
to
a
nearby
industrial
facility.
This
integration
can
lead
to
the
following
benefits
for
the
nearby
industrial
facility:

­
increase
operational
efficiency,
reduce
operating
costs,
and
­
reduce
or
eliminate
thermal
and
chemical
pollution
and
potential
entrainment
or
impingement
impacts
from
heat
exchanger
surface
water
intakes.

°
One
estimate
suggests
that
an
electric
power
generator
using
cold
water
from
an
LNG
import
terminal
can
boost
its
efficiency
by
1
to
2%,
resulting
in
cost
savings
(
World
Energy,
2004).

°
Finally,
this
integration
reduces
or
eliminates
the
potential
entrainment
or
impingement
impacts
as
well
as
the
thermal
and
chemical
pollution
associated
with
the
water
intake
LNG
re­
gasification
processes.

I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
­
Onshore
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
16
°
In
general,
most
new
onshore
LNG
import
terminals
are
proposing
to
use
LNG
vaporization
systems
with
no
surface
water
intakes
(
e.
g.,

integration
with
other
industrial
facilities,
heating
towers,
gas­
fired
heaters).

I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
­
Onshore
BP
Crown
Landing
LNG
import
terminal,
Gloucester
County,
New
Jersey
(
Source:
http://
www.
bplng.
com/
products/
services_
tech.
asp)

°
However,
at
least
one
new
facility
(
BP
Crown
Landing)
is
proposing
to
use
surface
water
as
a
heat
source
for
their
LNG
regasification
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
17
Cabrillo
Port,
Deepwater
Port,
Ventura,
California
°
Initial
data
suggest
that
six
of
the
eight
proposed
offshore
LNG
import
terminals
will
use
surface
water
for
warming
and/
or
cooling
purposes.

°
Only
GOM
Energy
Bridge
uses
more
than
25%
of
water
intake
for
cooling
­
all
other
intakes
are
used
for
vaporization
(
warming)

purposes.

I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
­
Offshore
°
Two
proposed
LNG
import
terminals
are
projected
to
use
no
water
intakes
 
e.
g
burn
natural
gas
to
provide
energy
for
re­
gasification
(
Cabrillo
Port,
Offshore
CA).
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
18
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
­
Offshore
*
Note:
The
GOM
Energy
bridge
can
use
both
shell
and
tube
vaporizers
and
closed­
loop
heat
exchangers.
Closed­
loop
system
also
projected
to
use
57
MGD
of
sea
water
for
vessel's
main
condenser.
0
Yes
Intermediate
fluid
vaporizers
1*

No
Closed­
loop
heat
exchangers
1*

Yes
Shell
and
tube
vaporizers
2
No
Submerged
combustion
vaporizers
5
Yes
Open
rack
vaporizers
No.
Offshore
LNG
terminals
Water
Intake?

Type
of
Vaporization
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
19
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
 
Offshore
(
ORV)

°
It
appears
likely
that
five
of
the
eight
proposed
U.
S.
offshore
LNG
import
terminals
will
use
Open
Rack
Vaporizer
(
ORV)
technology
for
re­
gasification
of
LNG
(
i.
e.,
Port
Pelican,
Gulf
Landing,
Compass
Port,
Main
Pass
Energy
Hub,
Port
Penguin).

°
This
re­
gasification
technology
uses
large
quantities
of
seawater
(
e.
g.,
100
to
200
MGD)
flowing
over
a
series
of
panel
coils
to
warm
the
LNG
that
is
flowing
countercurrent
within
the
panels.
Sea
water
flows
through
intake
screens
and
is
then
pumped
to
ORVs
through
strainers.

°
Sodium
hypochlorite
is
often
injected
at
concentrations
of
1
to
2
mg/
L
into
intake
waters
as
an
anti­
biofouling
agent.
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
20
Source:
Port
Pelican
Deepwater
Port
License
Application
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
21
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
 
Offshore
(
ORV)

°
"
The
use
of
this
large
quantity
of
seawater
[
associated
with
ORV
or
IFV]
raises
concerns
over
entrainment
and
impingement
of
marine
species,
thermal
plumes,
turbidity,
treated
water
discharge
and
noise."

°
"
Based
on
continuous
send
out
rate
of
7.5
million
tons
per
year
(
1020
MMSCFD),
we
estimate
that
this
will
[
require]
18,000
m3/
hr
[~
114
MGD]
at
a
8.5
oC
temperature
drop
from
the
inlet
temperature.

Significant
changes
to
marine
ecology
are
likely
due
to
marine
life
becoming
trapped
in
filtration
systems
[
and]
plankton
removed
from
food
chain
in
large
volumes."

Cabrillo
Port
Application
for
Deepwater
Port
License
Compass
Port
Application
for
Deepwater
Port
License
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
22
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
 
Offshore
(
ORV)

°
All
five
LNG
import
terminals
using
ORV
technology
are
designing
the
intakes
with
a
through­
screen
velocity
of
0.5
ft/
sec
or
less
in
order
to
reduce
impingement.

°
Moreover,
most
of
these
LNG
import
terminals
are
proposing
to
use
intake
screens
with
wedge­
wire
technology
to
reduce
the
potential
for
impingement.

°
Some
are
proposing
to
use
cylindrical
wedge­
wire
screen
with
0.25­
inch
slot
size
openings
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
of
aquatic
organisms.
Cylindrical
Wedge­
Wire
Screen
w/
Air
Sparging
(
Johnson
Screens)
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
23
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
 
Offshore
(
ORV)

°
Finally,
some
of
these
import
terminals
using
ORVs
are
proposing
other
control
measures
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment:

­
Locating
the
intakes
as
close
as
practical
to
the
sea
bottom
to
reduce
the
potential
for
entrainment
of
smaller
aquatic
organisms
which
are
more
likely
to
be
near
the
surface;

­
Designing
intakes
for
horizontal
flow
to
minimize
the
potential
for
water
coning
from
the
surface;

­
Minimizing
warming
water
throughput
requirements
for
the
installation
by
using
the
maximum
practical
inlet
to
outlet
seawater
temperature
change
of
18
oF;
and
­
Committing
to
monitor
impingement
and
entrainment
of
marine
life
during
the
first
two
years
of
operation
to
establish
the
impact
of
the
facility
on
marine
life,
and
a
commitment
to
implement
reasonable
and
practical
improvement
measures
if
warranted
scientifically
through
the
monitoring
program.
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
24
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
 
Offshore
(
SCV)

°
It
appears
likely
that
two
of
the
eight
proposed
U.
S.
offshore
LNG
import
terminals
will
use
Submerged
Combustion
Vaporizer
(
SCV)

technology
for
re­
gasification
of
LNG
(
i.
e.,
Cabrillo
Port,
Crystal
Energy).

°
This
re­
gasification
technology
uses
no
surface
water
and
instead
uses
LNG
as
the
heat
source.

°
SCV
burns
natural
gas
equivalent
to
1.5
to
2%
of
the
LNG
throughput
to
generate
heat.
This
is
similar
to
the
1.5%
energy
penalty
identified
in
the
316(
b)
Phase
I
new
facility
rule
for
cooling
towers.

°
Overall
the
SCV
has
lower
capital
cost
than
the
ORV
system
and
quick
start­
up
but
has
a
higher
operating
cost
(
especially
at
gas
prices
higher
than
$
1.9/
MMBtu).
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
25
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
 
Offshore
(
SCV)
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
26
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
 
Offshore
(
STV)

°
It
appears
likely
that
one
of
the
eight
proposed
U.
S.
offshore
LNG
import
terminals
will
use
shell
and
tube
vaporizer
technology
for
re­
gasification
of
LNG
(
i.
e.,
GOM
Energy
Bridge).

°
This
re­
gasification
technology
uses
seawater
from
sea
chests
to
provide
the
necessary
heat.
The
warming
seawater
will
pass
through
the
shell
and
tube
vaporizer
and
indirectly
heat
the
LNG.
As
describe
above,
this
re­
gasification
technology
uses
large
quantities
of
seawater
(
e.
g.,
approximately
80
MGD).

°
The
GOM
Energy
Bridge
will
draw
seawater
from
the
surrounding
area
at
approximately
23
ft
below
the
water
surface.

°
Intake
structures
on
the
LNG
vessels
are
sized
to
provide
seawater
for
both
standard
ship
operations
(
including
water
intakes
for
cooling
purposes)
and
the
warming
water
for
the
LNG
vaporizers.
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
27
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
 
Offshore
(
STV)

°
GOM
Energy
Bridge
is
proposing
an
intake
velocity
of
approximately
1.0
ft/
s.
The
sea
chest
intakes
incorporate
metal
slotted
grating
on
21
millimeters
(
mm)
spacings
to
reduce
the
impingement
of
aquatic
organisms.

°
"
This
mesh
size
[
will
not]
prevent
the
entrainment
of
eggs
and
larvae
of
marine
fish
species."

°
Options
for
sea
chest
intakes
are
more
limited
than
intakes
for
fixed
structures,
however,
other
impingement
and
entrainment
controls
for
these
sea
chests
might
include:

­
Using
intake
screens
with
wedge­
wire
technology
to
reduce
the
potential
for
impingement,
and
­
Other
similar
control
technologies
identified
for
ORV
systems.

Final
EA
for
GOM
Energy
Bridge
Deepwater
Port
Application
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
28
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
 
Offshore
(
CLHE)

°
It
appears
likely
that
one
of
the
eight
proposed
U.
S.
offshore
LNG
import
terminals
has
the
potential
to
the
use
closed­
loop
heat
exchangers
(
CLHE)
for
re­
gasification
of
LNG
(
i.
e.,
GOM
Energy
Bridge).

°
In
the
closed
loop
mode,
steam
from
the
LNG
vessel
propulsion
boilers
will
heat
water
circulated
in
a
closed
loop
through
the
shell
and
tube
vaporizer
and
a
steam
heater.
After
the
cycle,
the
water
will
be
re­
circulated
through
the
system.

°
There
is
no
seawater
intake
or
discharge
for
the
re­
gasification
process
in
the
closed
loop
mode.
The
closed
loop
mode
allows
for
LNG
re­
gasification
when
surrounding
seawater
temperatures
are
too
cold
for
the
more
efficient
open
loop
mode.
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
29
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
 
Offshore
(
CLHE)

°
The
main
disadvantage
of
this
closed­
loop
re­
gasification
system
verses
the
shell
and
tube
vaporizers
(
open
loop)
re­
gasification
system
is
the
decreased
rate
of
LNG
vaporization
(
0.45
Bcfd
vs
0.55
Bfcd).

°
The
closed­
loop
configuration
is
also
projected
to
use
57
MGD
of
sea
water
for
vessel's
main
condenser.

°
"
Vessels
operating
in
the
closed­
loop
mode
avoid
impacts
to
marine
fishery
species
from
impingement
and
entrainment,
and
are
capable
of
re­
gasifying
LNG
with
only
slightly
less
efficiency
than
vessels
operating
in
the
open­
loop
mode.
The
EA
for
the
Energy
Bridge
Gulf
of
Mexico
deepwater
port
should
evaluate
alternative
criteria
for
re­
gasification
operational
modes,
including
requiring
the
sole
use
of
closed­
loop
re­
gasification
systems.
Detailed
justification
should
be
provided
in
the
EA
for
the
selection
or
elimination
of
alternatives
for
re­
gasification
operational
modes."
[
emphasis
added]

NOAA's
June
20,2003,
letter
to
USGC
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
30
I&
E
Control
Technologies
Available
for
LNG
Import
Terminals
 
Offshore
(
IFV)

°
It
appears
likely
that
none
of
the
eight
proposed
U.
S.
offshore
LNG
import
terminals
will
use
Intermediate
Fluid
Vaporizer
(
IFV)
technology
for
regasification
of
LNG.

°
This
re­
gasification
technology
uses
glycol/
water
mix
to
exchange
heat
with
the
LNG
via
a
shell
and
tube
exchanger.

°
Sea
water
is
used
a
heat
source
and
in
same
flow
rate
as
ORV.

°
Potential
IFV
I&
E
control
technologies
same
as
ORV.
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
31
Questions/
Thoughts?
July
20,
2004
NOAA
LNG
Workshop
32
U.
S.
EPA
Contact
Information
chen.
isaac@
epa.
gov
214­
665­
7364
Engineer,

Region
6
Isaac
Chen
giglio.
larry@
epa.
gov
214­
665­
6639
Engineer,

Region
6
Larry
Giglio
Economist
Biologist
Engineer
Position
johnston.
carey@
epa.
gov
202­
566­
1014
Carey
Johnston,
P.
E.
helm.
erik@
epa.
gov
202­
566­
1066
Erik
Helm
allen.
ashley@
epa.
gov
202­
566­
1012
Ashley
Allen
E­
mail
Phone
Name