Salvation or Destruction? Safety, security of LNG tankers and terminals a looming question Down East

loading...

The Second of a Two-Part Report

Missing from the liquefied natural gas tankers that pass through Boston are big red bull’s-eyes painted on their sides.

At least one local mayor has called the tankers “moving targets for terrorists,” vessels so large and potentially deadly that their once weekly presence requires police protection, which costs the liquefied natural gas company Distrigas of Massachusetts a minimum of $30,000 to secure each trip.

A Massachusetts State Police helicopter buzzes around the harbor like a big gnat each time a tanker arrives, positioning itself with a bird’s-eye view for land-based terrorists who may want to attack the vessels or gazers who may be casing them.

The chopper and various police and U.S. Coast Guard patrol boats carry machine guns or other armament, while snipers man rooftops in discreet locations.

Marine traffic, from water taxis to cargo tankers, are warned by the Coast Guard 12 hours in advance that a liquefied natural gas tanker is approaching the Boston area. As the vessel reaches Broad Sound, a safety zone is placed around it – meaning no other boats are allowed on the water – as it creeps through the sound en route to Boston Harbor, and eventually the Mystic River.

“This safety and security zone is activated for the protection of the harbor,” the Coast Guard alert says. “Violators will be prosecuted.”

The trip – from five miles out in the Atlantic Ocean to the Distrigas terminal in Everett – takes 41/2 hours.

And on a recent March day, the tanker Berge Boston appeared eerily isolated as it made its way into the harbor.

The security of LNG tankers and terminals is part of a discussion under way in Maine as communities near Pleasant Point consider whether Oklahoma-based Quoddy Bay LLC and the Passamaquoddy Tribe should proceed with building a $400 million facility there.

Questions include whether the tankers and the terminals will be safe physically and more-than-adequately protected. Whether the tankers can maneuver in a corkscrew of Maine waterways, including what the developer calls one of “the world’s biggest whirlpools,” and eventually moor at a dock three-quarters-of-a-mile out from the facility.

In Boston and neighboring communities, residents repeatedly raise similar questions about safety and security, even though they have gotten used to the 900-plus-foot-long tankers crawling in once a week with 35 million gallons of fuel onboard – fuel that meets one-third of the region’s energy needs.

Consumers may be used to it, but it doesn’t mean they like it.

The biggest opponent is Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, who after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks went to court seeking an injunction that the vessels not be allowed to enter Boston Harbor because of the risk to human life and the nation’s economy if the tankers were ever breached.

He lost.

“The research shows one thing: that the consequences of LNG [tanker] ignition would be catastrophic for our city,” said Menino Press Secretary Seth Gitell during a recent interview. “Absolutely catastrophic.”

But after 34 years of being in business, Distrigas has had only one spillage incident, which occurred at the facility in Everett, not on the water, said spokeswoman Julie Vitech. Liquefied natural gas leaked from a 12-story-high tank into a containment area surrounding it and vaporized with no one being harmed, she said.

“It certainly didn’t compromise anyone’s health,” she said.

Securing the route

While traveling to the Distrigas site, the liquefied natural gas tankers pass by two Boston area communities that now have landmarks associated with the worst terrorism attacks on U.S. soil – Sept. 11, 2001.

One is Logan International Airport, where two of the aircraft used to carry out the Sept. 11 attacks took off. The other is high-priced condominiums at the old Charlestown Naval Shipyard, where family members of attack mastermind Osama Bin Laden lived at the time.

Before the Sept. 11 attacks, locals viewed the liquefied natural gas tankers as ordinary. The vessels’ contents were mysterious yet unquestioned.

Hours after the attacks, F-16 fighter jets and police patrols surrounded a Distrigas tanker docked in Everett and hurriedly escorted it to open Atlantic Ocean waters for fear the fuel inside could be the next target.

It took the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to awaken Boston area communities situated along the tankers’ traveling route that potential targets were moving through their waterways.

After that, security already in place for more than 30 years was beefed up. Now, when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security elevates the terrorism alert level, Distrigas increases the level of security surrounding its operation.

Protecting the harbor and the tankers is done by the U.S. Coast Guard, Massachusetts State Police, Massachusetts Environmental Police, Boston, Chelsea and Everett police departments, as well as privately hired security forces.

“We really watch the water,” said Chelsea’s police Chief Frank Garvin, whose city has an expansive public park along the Mystic River. “You do the best you can. If you’re asking me if it’s 100 percent safe, nothing’s 100 percent safe. I believe it’s safe, but what can you do?”

Although experts conclude that natural gas in its liquid form won’t explode and is not flammable, a study by Sandia National Laboratory suggests that the right ignition source combined with a serious spill could lead to an intense fire. In a worst-case scenario, the most significant impact to people and property exists within 1,640 feet of a spill because of “thermal hazards from fires.” There would be less of a threat to people and property a mile from the fire.

“Risks from accidental LNG spills, such as from collisions and groundings, are small and manageable with current safety policies and practices,” the report said. “Risks from intentional events, such as terrorist acts, can be significantly reduced with appropriate security, planning, prevention and mitigation.”

But George Rotondo, a Revere city councilor, doesn’t think that Mary O’Malley Park is protected enough. Saying the tankers have “the capacity of a Hiroshima bomb,” Rotondo wants the park closed to the public whenever a tanker is docked in neighboring Everett.

He said he also believes the police forces escorting the tankers do not have enough firepower to fight off a terrorist attack.

“If you think about it, this LNG facility provides one-third of all of New England’s LNG,” Rotondo said. “So if you don’t look on it as a pure terrorist point of view in the sense of military operations, in an economic operation it’s devastating.”

While Rotondo was talking, a Massachusetts State Police helicopter backtracked to the Chelsea park from Everett and hovered over the Mystic River where Rotondo was standing with his 3-year-old daughter, Gabriella.

“Here’s my thought,” Rotondo said. “Everything’s all good for show. But when the real show comes, are they going to be ready? [Police are] down there [on the water] without an automatic weapon. … If a terrorist cell comes here, you’ve seen them on TV, they’ve got automatic weapons.

“If gangsters in Revere and Boston can get automatic weapons, what makes you think terrorists can’t? So who is going to stop them?”

Living with LNG

Everett Mayor David Ragucci said he questions Rotondo’s assessment of the tankers’ security procedures.

“I don’t know how knowledgeable he is of the security measures that are in place,” Ragucci said. “I don’t know how knowledgeable he is of securing a facility like that, securing a tanker that size. Anyone can say that. I’m not impressed by that.”

The Distrigas facility is located in an area saturated with energy fuel tanks and pipelines. Besides the liquefied natural gas terminal, ExxonMobil and Sprague Energy are there in addition to an electricity generating plant.

But it’s the liquefied natural gas facility that garners the greatest amount of scrutiny. Except from Mayor Ragucci.

“There’s a lot of flammable liquids in one area,” he said. “We concern ourselves equally with Distrigas as we do with Exxon and their tank farm.”

At Distrigas, security guards are posted at gates around the perimeter of the terminal. Surveillance cameras are positioned in discreet locations and a private security patrol roves the tank facility, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which monitors onshore LNG terminals.

Recently, worries about the potential damage of the LNG tanks if nearby propane tanks exploded or caught fire resulted in the propane tanks being removed from an adjacent property.

Distrigas helped pay for their removal.

Ragucci said Everett’s security procedures regarding the tankers are different from that of Boston’s operations.

They have to be, Ragucci said, because Boston Mayor Menino is worried about the tankers as “moving targets” while Ragucci is concerned about the vessels and the terminal’s tanks as fixed targets.

“His concern would be if there were some sort of catastrophic breach on the tanker itself as it came through the harbor, there would be no way to really control the tanker from hitting one section of the city of Boston,” Ragucci said of Menino.

“That’s a little different from my end,” he added. “Of course my concern is I live with that substance 24-7. We don’t have a moving target. That’s a fixed facility. We’ve got deployment levels when the security levels increase. Whenever we have to deploy officers down there, we do it with Distrigas’ money.”

Everett is paid $6,000 per tanker delivery for police patrols.

Ragucci said he has no qualms about the level of security around the tankers and the Distrigas terminal.

Beyond offshore terminals, Menino wants a federal energy council established that would determine where new liquefied natural gas facilities should be built and by which companies. More than 40 LNG plants have been proposed in just as many cities nationwide, including the Pleasant Point site in Maine.

“Every single community … everybody’s dealing with it in [such] a piecemeal fashion that there has to be some order and oversight brought to this so that there’s a real energy policy in this country, not just economic interests in specific markets,” Gitell said.