FERC says LNG plant poses little danger
Friday, August 17, 2007 11:26 PM PDT
By Tony Lystra
Printable version
E-mail this articleA key federal agency has concluded that a liquified natural gas plant proposed for the Lower Columbia River would have little damage to the environment.
Construction of NorthernStar Natural Gas's LNG terminal at Bradwood Landing "would be an environmentally acceptable action," according to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission statement issued Friday morning.
Among other findings, the draft environmental impact statement concludes that "the security provisions and operational controls that would be imposed (on LNG terminal and LNG tankers) would make the likelihood of an LNG spill, and the potential for an associated pool fire, remote."
In a statement, NorthernStar said it was "very pleased" with FERC's initial staff report and noted its plans to spend as much as $59 million to protect salmon habitat.
"We have designed our facility to have the smallest footprint possible," the company's president, William "Si" Garrett said.
But Dan Serres, of Columbia Riverkeeper, an environmental group opposing the terminal, questioned whether the company can do enough to offset damage to salmon habitat that, he believes, the project will cause.
Dredging a turning basin for tankers, as well as filling an old mill pond that has become part of the salmon habitat, he said, could prove irreversible.
"The amount of damage they're doing ... is pretty massive," Serres said. "I don't think the impacts are such that they can be mitigated. It's just a massive project, a massive amount of damage."
The draft environmental study now becomes subject to a 120-day public comment period. Then FERC still issue a final report and send it to the FERC commissioners, who will decide whether to permit the project.
While not a decision whether to allow the project, the study is the first indicator of where FERC is leaning on NorthernStar's proposal to build the $600 million terminal.
If built, the terminal would off-load superchilled LNG from specially built tankers, heat the gas back into vapor, and then send it off to market through a 36-mile pipeline the company wants to build under the Columbia River and through Cowlitz County.
The terminal, according to FERC, would handle an estimated 125 tankers a year, resulting in a 7 percent increase in river traffic in the lower Columbia.
Rep. Dean Takko, D-Longview said FERC's report doesn't change his opposition to the project. He said he is primarily concerned about the effects the terminal and strict security measures for incoming tankers will have on fishing, boating and other shipping interests.
"Our main concern is what it's going to do to shipping," Takko said Friday. "It seems a little unreasonable when I think that there are probably locations that could have been closer to the ocean. ... Why bring it that far inland?"
FERC's report took into account other possible West Coast terminal locations. "However, we concluded that none of these facilities would meet all the objectives of the Bradwood Landing project" and "none appear to have clear environmental advantages over the Bradwood Landing location."
It said building the terminal near the mouth of the Columbia River would be unsuitable due to "deep, rough seas," limitations in technology and "additional environmental impacts" that would come with a longer pipeline.
Cowlitz County Commissioner Kathleen Johnson said she is particularly concerned about the Houston company's plans for the pipeline, which would connect with the existing Williams Northwest pipeline near Interstate 5 north of Kelso.
"We're always going to say, 'Why are you coming through Cowlitz County? '" Johnson said. "Why drag Washington into it all? ... We are sensitive to the impact (that the pipeline) is going to make on our citizens. We also know that the feds have jurisdiction over us."
"It just feels like Big Brother's coming," she said. "It really shows you where your helplessness is."
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard joined FERC in preparing the environmental study, which found the project is environmentally acceptable for a host of reasons. Among them:
• The LNG terminal would be designed to withstand earthquakes and measures would be taken to protect the proposed pipeline from landslide hazards.
• Dredging to create a terminal would not change the nature of currents in the Columbia River or Clifton Channel, and the sediments to be dredged are not contaminated.
• Northern Star would take steps to control erosion and storm water pollution and protect wetlands and soils along the pipeline route in Washington.
n Water intakes by LNG ships would be screened to prevent them from sucking in threatened or endangered salmon.
The public has until Monday, Dec. 24, to comment on the report, which is available online at www.ferc.gov under "What's new."
Past Month's Most Commented Stories