The discovery portion of the Searsport Planning Board’s review of a proposed LPG facility, including 11 nights of hearings that began in November, thousands of pages of evidence, with stress and fault lines between parties clearly evident, ended ignominiously Feb. 25.
Although the schedule allows submission of written material and briefs by interested parties during the next few weeks, on or about March 27, the board will begin its decision-making process in earnest, deciding whether the proposal meets the many criteria of approval in Searsport’s land use and site plan review ordinances.
What have we learned since this application was filed last summer? Why are the Islesboro, Matinicus and North Haven town governments, as well as numerous other Penobscot Bay towns, deeply concerned about the proposed LPG facility?
A shortened list would have to include:
Maine does not need the proposed propane import facility. The Maine and U.S. propane market is awash in domestic product. Very little foreign propane entered east coast ports in 2012 and industry analysts predict an insignificant amount in 2013. Two propane competitors in southern Maine increased propane supply this year by more than 40 percent using existing and improved rail delivery of domeåstic product.
U.S. propane production is setting records and many companies are scrambling to export propane. “[G]as export would completely alter the risks posed by gas development at Searsport,” according to the Richard A. Clarke Good Harbor risk assessment, creating exponentially more propane traffic on roads, rails and ships plying the bay.
Numerous cost-effective and environmentally preferable alternatives to importation of foreign propane already exist or are underway, including expanded and new rail LPG terminals, new LPG storage facilities, expansion of natural gas pipeline service in direct competition with propane, use of renewable solar and biomass, increased use of weatherization and efficiency to reduce energy consumption and development of wind power.
The lethal hazard zone for an explosive vapor cloud fire extends far beyond the boundaries of the property owned by DCP. The Good Harbor, U.S. Coast Guard and Congressional reports all conclude that safety and security risks for LPG and LNG are similar. Based on blast analyses, Good Harbor found the Searsport site does not meet minimum federal siting criteria for LNG, and should not be permitted for LPG for the same reasons.
There is insufficient water depth for the intended deep-draft LPG import vessels at both the harbor entrance harbor and the pier.
Regional public safety and security resources are not currently sufficient to address a significant land-based or maritime incident; essential plans to address potential fires and explosions do not exist. As Richard Clarke wrote, in a Feb. 12 letter to Searsport officials, “You do not want to look back, years from now, after a disaster and wish you had done more, wish you had put the safety and security of your citizens first. You may think that a disaster is a very remote possibility, that nothing like this has ever happened before. That’s the way we thought before Oklahoma City. That’s the way we thought before 9-11. Just because it has not happened before, does not mean it will not happen. If the physics allows it to happen, then you have to act as though it will.”
No risk management planning and no cost sharing plan to fulfill essential risk management needs exists.
Voluminous and compelling evidence from realtors, appraisers and consultants all demonstrate that property values will go down if the massive facility goes up. The only questions are how much property value will be lost and for how large an area in the region.
Ten Penobscot Bay towns, including the three islands mentioned above, expressed real and legitimate concerns about safety, the environment and the economy.
All of the islands in Penobscot Bay, during an Island Institute long-range planning exercise, expressed a clear imperative to protect and sustain our current island businesses. Many of the natural resource-based industries that supported island communities in the past (fisheries of many kinds, wooden boat building, island agriculture, even home construction) are in trouble or extinct. Holding on to those that remain, and creating island-appropriate new opportunities, is fundamental to the long-term health and viability of our islands and the region.
Last summer Sen. Susan Collins was quoted saying, “For some in Maine, the environment is the economy.” That is nowhere more correct than in Penobscot Bay and on the islands.
One then arrives at the inevitable conclusion: Now is not the time and Penobscot Bay is not the place for the proposed LPG facility.
Stephen Miller is executive director of the Islesboro Islands Trust.