LNG proposal roils Fall River
Many say terminal would bring blight, hazards to city
boston.com
By Carolyn Y. Johnson, Globe Correspondent | August 4, 2004
FALL RIVER -- The former oil terminal in North Fall River sits alongside a deep, polluted harbor lined by gritty smokestacks, just a few miles from an interstate gas pipeline. For energy companies, it would be an ideal location for New England's largest liquefied natural gas import terminal.
For people who live down the street, the project would be a dangerous blight for a community seeking to escape its industrial past.
Despite public and governmental opposition, Weaver's Cove Energy LLC and Hess LNG are moving forward with a plan to meet New England's escalating demand for natural gas by installing a terminal in Fall River, a quarter-mile from the nearest residence.
At least eight communities around the United States have driven away proposed LNG facilities, but the proposed Fall River location is a privately owned, state-designated industrial port area and a contaminated brownfields site, meaning that the local government has no jurisdiction over the property. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will decide whether to issue a permit, and the agency issued a draft environmental impact statement last week that was widely seen as favorable to the project.
''It seems they've watered down the risks involved in this report, and that's of great concern. They're trying to get on a fast track to push this through," said state Representative David B. Sullivan, a Fall River Democrat who opposes the terminal.
The proposal arrives amid a growing national debate about the safety of locating LNG terminals near populated areas.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission concluded in a risk assessment report in May that a leak from an LNG tanker could catch fire and endanger people three-quarters of a mile away, though it said the ships have a strong safety record. Meanwhile, fears of terrorist attacks on LNG tankers or storage facilities have been fanned by reports that Al Qaeda operatives infiltrated the United States aboard tankers arriving at the LNG terminal in Everett, one of four in the United States.
But in the new report, the energy commission said a leak and fire were improbable because of extensive safety measures adopted by the LNG industry. The agency said little about the threat of terrorism.
''Historical experience provides little guidance in estimating the probability of a terrorist attack," the report said. It suggested that ''resources be directed to mitigate possible attack paths" but did not rule out putting the terminal near an urban area.
In Fall River, many are worried that poor cities like theirs, with large immigrant and working class populations, will be saddled with the projects.
''There's an unfortunate tradition in this country of putting these facilities in communities that are either willing to accept them because of financial benefits and therefore willing to ignore the downside or are unable to push them away," said Seth Kaplan, director of the clean energy and climate change program at the Conservation Law Foundation.
Fall River is one of the poorest cities in the state, with 14 percent of families living below the poverty level. It houses the largest landfill in the state, an incinerator that shut down five years ago, and two coal-burning power plants lie across the Taunton River.
Company spokesman James Grasso said the city would benefit from the $3 million in annual taxes paid by Weaver's Cove, which would become Fall River's top taxpayer.
But Mayor Edward Lambert said the taxes were ''economic blackmail."
''You would never have seen this proposal put forth in Kennebunkport, Maine," Lambert said. ''Today we're fighting alone, but tomorrow it could be another [poor] community."
The mayor isn't alone in his stance. The City Council voted to express its opposition to the project, and the Massachusetts Legislature in May unanimously passed a bipartisan resolution opposing it.
A local organization, Coalition for Responsible Siting of LNG, says it has the signatures of 7,000 people who think the community should not have to shoulder unknown environmental and safety risks, no matter how small.
About 9,000 people live within a mile of the proposed terminal, and a dozen of those residents gathered at the mayor's request on a recent afternoon to voice their worries.
''I'm really, really scared, and I don't want to move out of my home," said Cynthia Amarello, 77, who lives uphill from the site on a street that dead-ends at a fence bordering a highway. She and others who live on similar streets fear they could be trapped by a fire if there were an accident.
Company president Ted Gehrig said he has tried to allay the community's fears and estimated construction could start as early as the end of this year. ''I think if we have had one disappointment, it's that we haven't really been invited to have an open dialogue and a constructive dialogue with some of the groups in the local community," he said. ''This facility can be run safely. . . . It's been done in other parts of the world for a long time, and it can be done here."
Three commercials commissioned by opponents have been playing on cable stations for the past month, showing the aftermath of an LNG plant explosion in Algeria that killed 27 people in March. In Boston Harbor, a retinue including the Coast Guard, a dive team, rooftop snipers, and police usher in LNG tankers on their 5-mile journey to the Everett facility. The trip down the Taunton River is five times as long, posing prolonged and expensive danger, residents said.
But former police officer Gerald Rapoza, who says he is ''sick and tired of these scare tactics," founded a group called Friends of LNG and says that the small risk of an accident or attack are outweighed by the economic benefits of a terminal. ''Fall River is a depressed area," he said. ''We need industry down here."
The divided opinions about safety risks are in stark contrast to the widespread agreement that the United States needs more natural gas: Oil prices are high and natural gas is cleaner than coal for generating electricity. On a cold January day last winter in Hull, 530 homes and businesses lost gas service because of a lack of supply.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is under tremendous pressure to increase the gas supply, and could issue permits prematurely, said Kaplan, of the Conservation Law Foundation. ''The worst thing we could do is site these things by default because one was filed first, because a community was less able to push the project away."
Carolyn Johnson can be reached at cjohnson@globe.com. |
