Laserfiche WebLink
summary OT ine rISK metrlCS Tor LNh Isu train <br />movement ana Isu IITTIng. <br />Risk Metric <br />Hialeah <br />Port of <br />Port <br />Bowden <br />Miami <br />Everglades <br />Yard <br />SR Integral (total risk, yr-') <br />Maximum IR (y(') <br />Train Movement (from Track): Max <br />Distance to Zone 1 - 1 x 10-5 IR (ft) <br />Max Distance to Zone 2 - 1 x 10 IR (ft) <br />(4) <br />Max Distance to Zone 3 - 3x 10 IR (ft) <br />(4) <br />9 <br />ISO Lifting (from Point): Max <br />(4) <br />Distance to Zone 1 - 1x10-5 IR (ft) <br />E <br />E <br />E <br />® <br />Max Distance to Zone 2 - 1 x 10 IR (ft) <br />(4) <br />Max Distance to Zone 3 - 3x 10 IR (ft) <br />(4) <br />(4) <br />E.2.4 Benchmarking LNG against LPG <br />There is no current regulatory quantitative risk criteria for Individual Risk or Societal Risk of <br />LNG transportation by rail, and the criteria used here were developed from those applicable to <br />stationary LNG plants. Acceptable quantitative risk criteria for transportation of hazardous <br />materials typically represent higher risk levels than stationary facilities. To benchmark the risk <br />posed by LNG ISO train movements, the risk of movements of liquefied petroleum gas (propane <br />or LPG) in the rail yards and along the mainline were analyzed. On an energy equivalence basis, <br />N10,000 gallon ISO containers of LNG were compared to -34,000 gallon DOT -112 tank <br />(4) (4) cars of LPG. <br />As a result of the QRA, the transportation and <br />found to present similar or less risk than the <br />handling of 0 LNG ISO container <br />-movement of tank cars containing <br />,306, 94.00, - 5691 xxl <br />was <br />LPG. <br />