Some Oregon agencies critical of LNG plans
Saturday, November 24, 2007 5:09 AM PST
Printable version
E-mail this articleThe Associated Press and The Daily News
SALEM -- Publicly, Oregon's government has said little about a proposed liquefied natural gas import terminal proposed for the Columbia River above Astoria.
But in preliminary comments reviewed by The Oregonian, some state agencies are critical of a 600-page environmental review of the project issued in August by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The agencies questioned the environmental and public-safety impact of NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc.'s Bradwood Landing proposal.
They also question a lack of an independent assessment of the region's demand for the gas or the need for the facility.
"For FERC to make LNG siting decisions in a vacuum without the best available information and scientific data does a huge disservice to the people of Oregon," says a proposed cover letter drafted by the state Energy Department.
The unedited multiagency comments and cover letter could change before they are submitted.
Agencies commenting on the proposal included the departments of energy, environmental quality, fish and wildlife, forestry, transportation, and geology and mineral industries.
Gayle Kiser, the spokeswoman for Landowners and Citizens For a Safe Community, a Cowlitz County group opposing the terminal, said the agencies' comments are a boon to those who have been fighting NorthernStar's plans for more than a year.
"We are very happy to see the Oregon agencies come on board," she said. "We feel they're verifying the stand that we've taken for some time.... It's nice to get some official backup."
Kiser said the terminal's critics hope the pressure will force the FERC to issue a new draft environmental impact statement for the project. The current environmental review is a "totally deficient document," she said.
She said FERC issued a cursory review of the project's impacts because the agency was "under pressure -- either from higher-ups in government or from industry."
"The Bush administration is trying to get as much of this infrastructure in place as they can before they leave office," Kiser said. "They're industry friendly."
A compilation of the comments will go to the FERC, which is taking public comment on Bradwood Landing until Dec. 24.
The federal agency is to issue its final environmental impact statement in the spring.
Bradwood Landing is one of two LNG terminals proposed for the lower Columbia River. Another is proposed for Coos Bay. Bradwood is the furthest along in the permitting process.
The terminals and associated pipelines are delicate issues in the communities and rural areas where they would be located.
Among the concerns cited:
-- The FERC has not provided any independent assessment of the demand for LNG to justify the need for the project.
-- The terminal project would conflict with efforts to restore the Columbia River and its estuary.
-- Proposed dredging would harm the watershed, water quality, and sensitive species and habitat.
-- No commitment has been made for emergency response for Bradwood Landing.
-- LNG ships would disrupt commercial and recreational fishing boats and air pollution would pose a risk to lower river residents.
-- Bradwood would present hazards in case of landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis and flooding.
The state Economic and Community Development Department identified benefits including increased property tax revenue in Clatsop County, 500 temporary construction jobs and some 50 permanent jobs.
Supporters contend that the new gas supply and pipelines would bolster the state's economy and protect ratepayers from price shocks as gas supplies tighten.
"Although there is a vocal and organized group that is not in favor of the project, it is well supported by many of the businesses in the community," Dennie Houle, the state Economic and Community Development Department's regional development officer, said in a memo.
Joe Desmond, a spokesman for NorthernStar, said his company couldn't comment until a final version was submitted.
Desmond said NorthernStar has spent millions of dollars to analyze how the terminal would affect the river, salmon and the environment.
Much of the data the state is seeking, he said, will be part of the FERC's final environmental report.
"I don't think you can conclude that the project is in conflict (with the environment) without reading the final environmental impact statement," Desmond said.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 pre-empted state authority over licensing energy facilities and put the FERC in charge.
While the FERC controls terminal licensing, the state has the last word under its Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act or Coastal Zone Management Act.
Critics say they hope that if the FERC approves the project the state will stop it.
"The agencies have a sent a strong message to the governor that he should veto this absurd idea," said Brent Foster, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, an environmental advocacy group.
Past Month's Most Commented Stories