While the time for official public comment is now closed, the signs proclaiming,
“LNG is not for me,” still line lawns throughout Bristol County and the battle
over the proposed construction of a liquefied natural gas tank in Fall River
could be headed to the federal courts.
Under a plan from Hess LNG for Weaver Cove in Fall River, tankers would pass under the Pell and Mount Hope bridges in Rhode Island, as well as under Interstate 195’s Braga and the Brightman Street bridges, to deliver gas to a proposed terminal in Fall River.
Liquefied natural gas is natural gas that has been cooled to liquid form and takes up to hundreds of times less space than in a gaseous state. Natural gas is usually transported in the liquid form and then reheated and converted to gas at terminals. The safety concern surrounding the liquefied gas is the liquid vaporizes as soon as it makes contact with the air or with water and can be dangerously flammable.
As many as 50 tankers would be expected to dock at each facility annually and local opponents of the facilities have questioned what security measures will need to be in place. For example, when an LNG tanker arrives in Boston Harbor, boats and shore patrols are regularly deployed to escort the vessel and traffic is stopped on bridges the tanker must travel below.
Meanwhile, two petitions, one from Fall River Mayor Edward Lambert Jr. and a second from the Massachusetts and Rhode Island state attorneys general, were filed with the federal Department of Transportation in late September. Both of the petitions say the proposals fail to meet a 1979 congressional mandate to develop location standards for natural gas facilities.
Keyspan Energy has also proposed building a LNG terminal at Fields Point in Providence, which would result in tankers traveling beneath the Pell Bridge in Newport.
Rhode Island’s Patrick Lynch, Massachusetts’ Thomas Reilly and Lambert say the federal DOT has brushed aside the mandate by issuing safety standards that don’t adequately address issues of public safety in siting the facilities.
Lambert’s filing goes a step further and requests a stay on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission review until the DOT adopts even more stringent regulations than those outlined by the attorneys general. His standards would eliminate the site off of Fall River’s North Main Street, where Hess LNG hopes to construct its facility, from consideration.
Lambert said the issue, unlike any other since he became mayor in 1996, has galvanized the entire community. Town governments from Jamestown, R.I., to Freetown, Mass., have come out against the proposals, often pointing to alternative locations in Maine, Canada and Gloucester, Mass., that are in less populated areas.
“I’ve never seen this sort of deeply passionate feeling about an issue, nevermind this sort of overwhelming opposition to something where everyone’s on the same side,” Lambert said.
Lambert is hopeful that one of a variety of tacks being pursued by legislators and citizens’ groups, like the Coalition for the Responsible Siting of LNG Facilities, will prove to be the silver bullet that kills the proposal. He said while LNG is undoubtedly an important fuel source, nothing he has seen has indicated that the substance should be stored close to such a heavily populated area.
“It’s astounding to me that in a post 9-11 world, so little data is available on siting these facilities as it relates to terrorist attacks,” said Lambert, who said the federal energy commission has said that with so little information available, they will make decisions based on assuming the risk is minimal.
“At best, that’s an assumption that will get you thrown out of a ninth-grade statistics class,” he said. “At worst, it’s the most foolish thing I’ve ever heard from a homeland security perspective.”
Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed recently got a provision he authored through the Senate in mid-September, asking the federal Department of Homeland Security to report whether the U.S. Coast Guard and energy regulators should better coordinate their reviews of the placement of liquid natural gas terminals. In a letter sent to FERC this month, Reed also asked that residents be made aware of any security concerns raised by the Coast Guard, which is part of the homeland security department, before the public comment period closed.
Reed’s provision is aimed at having the departments postpone their decision on the proposed facilities until the Coast Guard finishes its review of both projects. Homeland security officials would then have 90 days to report back to Congress on whether the reviews from the Coast Guard and FERC should be integrated.
For both proposals, the Coast Guard must evaluate security risks, including
whether it will be necessary to close any bridges that tankers would travel
beneath to get to the terminals.
