Escape from LNG in Eastport, Maine?
A fine letter that certainly reverberates when it comes to the evacuation of Route 1 and Route 190.....
How do we outrun a ball of flaming gas?
The Herald News
Posted Nov 20, 2009 @ 09:44 AM
The time has come for FERC to put an end to the Weaver’s Cove debacle. There is a new FERC, one that actually appears to be listening to the public.
A long-standing argument of those opposed to the Weaver’s Cove facilities has been the apparent impossibility of having a viable evacuation plan in the event of an emergency. That should be among the first considerations for a federal agency charged with regulating an industry in which the potential for a catastrophic accident exists. Given the characteristics of the product, a viable evacuation plan should be part of the pre-filing process before considering a full application for an LNG facility. Government-sponsored studies agree. Most recently, the Sandia Studies describe scenarios in which thermal radiation could generate second-degree burns a mile away in 30 seconds or a gas vapor cloud that could travel two miles before igniting.
On July 9, FERC wrote to Freeport LNG (on Ouintana Island near Freeport, Texas) in response to residents expressing public safety concerns about that company’s plan to bring truckloads of LNG to the facility. FERC required a “bolstered emergency response plan,” asking the company to “identify evacuation zones for potential truck incidents at various locations along their route.”
The maximum number of people was to be calculated for each zone, even during tourist season, and “corresponding assembly area(s) and marine pick-up point(s) had to be identified” (The Facts, “Freeport Must Boost Emergency Plan,” July11, 2009).
In addition, the company was told to provide verification of the availability of rescue vessels from the Freeport fire and police departments, the Coast Guard and the Texas Department of Safety.
In October, Freeport LNG complied with the FERC order. FERC is following up with a visit to the area to validate the plan.
The fact is, while Hess LNG could designate evacuation routes for an emergency response plan, they would be a sham in the event of a real emergency. With respect to the land-based tank and regasification plant, there are dead-end streets from which the only means of egress in an emergency is toward the facility. The more than 9,000 people who live within a mile would have 30 seconds if a significant LNG leak ignited, and if it didn’t, all people and structures up to two miles away could be vulnerable.
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security wrote to FERC in February stating that after consulting with fire chiefs in the area: “It is feared that any evacuation would result in mass chaos and create traffic jams that would bring most vehicles to a standstill. Not only would this interfere with evacuation, it would severely impair any kind of emergency response to the area of the proposed facility.” They also stated, “It may not be possible to overcome all the safety and security implications regardless of the resources.”
The GAO, the Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have all recommended remote siting as the way to ensure public safety. In a recent book, “LNG, A Level Headed Look at the Liquefied Natural Gas Controversy,” author Virginia Thorndike concludes, “It seems like a no-brainer that LNG ships and facilities should be kept away from population centers and from industrial concentrations that could both attract and magnify the consequences of an LNG incident.”
No land-based U.S. LNG import regasification facility has been built in an urban area since the first one in Everett in 1971. Remote siting recommendations in federal law were intended to provide a vehicle to avoid a similar mistake.
There is a new FERC and it’s time for them to take a new look at the original Weaver’s Cove siting. The city of Fall River should insist that the precedent set for Freeport is applied to the Weaver’s Cove siting before the review process continues further. It is time for FERC to tell Hess LNG what they should have been told in the first place. Invest in a real offshore project or buy a remotely sited parcel of land that minimizes risk. If Weaver’s Cove Energy had done that in the first place, they’d be operating by now.
John C. Keppel
Fall River
Editor’s note: John Keppel is a member of the Coalition for Responsible Siting of LNG.
How do we outrun a ball of flaming gas?
The Herald News
Posted Nov 20, 2009 @ 09:44 AM
The time has come for FERC to put an end to the Weaver’s Cove debacle. There is a new FERC, one that actually appears to be listening to the public.
A long-standing argument of those opposed to the Weaver’s Cove facilities has been the apparent impossibility of having a viable evacuation plan in the event of an emergency. That should be among the first considerations for a federal agency charged with regulating an industry in which the potential for a catastrophic accident exists. Given the characteristics of the product, a viable evacuation plan should be part of the pre-filing process before considering a full application for an LNG facility. Government-sponsored studies agree. Most recently, the Sandia Studies describe scenarios in which thermal radiation could generate second-degree burns a mile away in 30 seconds or a gas vapor cloud that could travel two miles before igniting.
On July 9, FERC wrote to Freeport LNG (on Ouintana Island near Freeport, Texas) in response to residents expressing public safety concerns about that company’s plan to bring truckloads of LNG to the facility. FERC required a “bolstered emergency response plan,” asking the company to “identify evacuation zones for potential truck incidents at various locations along their route.”
The maximum number of people was to be calculated for each zone, even during tourist season, and “corresponding assembly area(s) and marine pick-up point(s) had to be identified” (The Facts, “Freeport Must Boost Emergency Plan,” July11, 2009).
In addition, the company was told to provide verification of the availability of rescue vessels from the Freeport fire and police departments, the Coast Guard and the Texas Department of Safety.
In October, Freeport LNG complied with the FERC order. FERC is following up with a visit to the area to validate the plan.
The fact is, while Hess LNG could designate evacuation routes for an emergency response plan, they would be a sham in the event of a real emergency. With respect to the land-based tank and regasification plant, there are dead-end streets from which the only means of egress in an emergency is toward the facility. The more than 9,000 people who live within a mile would have 30 seconds if a significant LNG leak ignited, and if it didn’t, all people and structures up to two miles away could be vulnerable.
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security wrote to FERC in February stating that after consulting with fire chiefs in the area: “It is feared that any evacuation would result in mass chaos and create traffic jams that would bring most vehicles to a standstill. Not only would this interfere with evacuation, it would severely impair any kind of emergency response to the area of the proposed facility.” They also stated, “It may not be possible to overcome all the safety and security implications regardless of the resources.”
The GAO, the Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have all recommended remote siting as the way to ensure public safety. In a recent book, “LNG, A Level Headed Look at the Liquefied Natural Gas Controversy,” author Virginia Thorndike concludes, “It seems like a no-brainer that LNG ships and facilities should be kept away from population centers and from industrial concentrations that could both attract and magnify the consequences of an LNG incident.”
No land-based U.S. LNG import regasification facility has been built in an urban area since the first one in Everett in 1971. Remote siting recommendations in federal law were intended to provide a vehicle to avoid a similar mistake.
There is a new FERC and it’s time for them to take a new look at the original Weaver’s Cove siting. The city of Fall River should insist that the precedent set for Freeport is applied to the Weaver’s Cove siting before the review process continues further. It is time for FERC to tell Hess LNG what they should have been told in the first place. Invest in a real offshore project or buy a remotely sited parcel of land that minimizes risk. If Weaver’s Cove Energy had done that in the first place, they’d be operating by now.
John C. Keppel
Fall River
Editor’s note: John Keppel is a member of the Coalition for Responsible Siting of LNG.
posted by Squander N. Blunderbush | 6:11 AM
|
0 comments
