Islesboro Islands Trust (IIT) is delighted to learn that DCP Searsport withdrew their Searsport applications to build what would have been one of the largest LPG facilities on the US east coast. The Searsport Planning Board looked hard at their land use ordinances, and found five performance standards that the proposal does not meet. In so doing, the Board responded to the overwhelming heart-felt public concern during the Searsport hearings and the chilling statement by Richard A. Clarke, when he wrote, “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… If the physics allows it to happen, then you have to act as though it will.”

We are immensely grateful to the Searsport Planning Board. They are the first agency to take a serious, unbiased look at this project and apply the law to the facts. When they voted that the site was inherently unsafe, DCP had no choice but withdraw their application.

The people of Penobscot Bay demonstrated, wrote letters, signed petitions, attended meetings, and contributed time, money, and energy. The people of Penobscot Bay proved once again that — sometimes — the will of the many is able to make a difference, even when faced with gigantic, outside interests.

From the first, IIT questioned the economic and environmental viability of building a massive LPG import facility on the small Route 1 property in Searsport. DCP’s retraction of its application and their indication that they will not pursue an import facility in Maine confirms our view that the proposal was the wrong project at the wrong time in the wrong place. DCP’s departure also underscores the economic reality that there is no import market for LPG; many such terminals around the country are now being used for export of fuels.

This is enormous news for Searsport, for the Pen Bay environment, and for the economy of the entire mid-coast region.

The legal team, led by Steve Hinchman, that included Gladstone Jones of Jones, Swanson, Huddell and Garrison, Charles Verrill of Wiley Rein, and Kim Ervin Tucker, proceeded with confidence that no permit could be approved if the law were applied appropriately and fairly. Their combined expertise shed focused legal light on often-disturbing state and federal agency review processes.

Islesboro and IIT have a long history of proactively protecting Penobscot Bay from inappropriate development proposals, such as the nuclear power plant and LNG proposals for Sears Island, while simultaneously working to maintain and expand good jobs and appropriate economic investment in the region’s fisheries, eco-tourism and other natural resource based development.

Islesboro Islands Trust is a non-profit land trust serving the community of Islesboro and the Penobscot Bay region of Maine. IIT’s mission is to enhance the quality of residents’ lives through the preservation of open space, educate all residents as to the value of the islands’ natural ecosystems, and act as an environmental advocate on behalf of Islesboro and the surrounding Penobscot Bay region.

For more information, please contact:

Steve Miller, Executive Director, Islesboro Islands Trust, 207-734-6907

or

Steve Hinchman, Project Attorney, 207-837-8637

The Notice requests that the Corps immediately withdraw the 2012 EA and CWA permit and reassess the project in light of significant new information that has surfaced since the EA was issued.  As explained below, this new information demonstrates several important points, including:

• there is no need for a marine terminal to import foreign LPG;
• more cost-effective and less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives are available to meet Maine’s energy needs; and
• the Corps failed to consider the grave consequences for Penobscot Bay if the Searsport terminal is used to export LPG.

While releasing the Intent to Sue, IIT Executive Director Steve Miller declared: “By constraining the Corps’ EA to support the DCP terminal project and by arbitrarily excluding other viable solutions, the Corps failed its duty to provide federal, state and local decision-makers and the public with the information necessary to properly weigh the potential economic and environmental costs and benefits of the proposed action. Accordingly, the Corps must withdraw the 2012 EA and wholly re-do its analysis.”

Steve Hinchman, project attorney, added, “Recent events and new information demonstrate that the EA is wrong, out-of-date, and unreliable, and must be supplemented…There is no need for a new marine LPG terminal to import foreign LPG into Maine or anywhere on the East Coast.  New information demonstrates that other fuels and energy sources are practicable and reasonable alternatives to increased propane use.”

According to the legal filing, NEPA states that the Corps must withdraw the 2012 EA and initiate a supplemental analysis. Similarly, under the CWA, the Corps must withdraw the 2012 permit to fill wetlands under their jurisdiction and fully evaluate if there are less environmentally damaging alternatives that would supply the Maine energy market and/or to provide new export terminals for domestic LPG.

As Tara Hollander, TBNT Steering Committee, pointed out, “No company–including DCP–is using the marine import facilities that exist today to bring in foreign LPG. In fact, there is a glut of domestic LPG which costs at least a dollar less than imported LPG.”

Further background: The filing submitted by IIT and TBNT’s legal team methodically outlines repeated Corps failures in its review of the DCP terminal project under the required NEPA and CWA statutes:

• The EA fails to take a “hard look” at Maine’s LPG infrastructure, market trends and reasonable alternatives. The Corps failed to consider the current state of Maine’s existing LPG supply chain and infrastructure. And, they illegally excluded from the analysis any consideration of the ongoing and fundamental transformation of the Maine and global LPG and energy markets due to changes in production and supply. NEPA requires a “hard look” when a proposed action will affect the quality of the human environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent.

• The Corps limited the overall project purpose of the EA to the marine import of foreign-sourced LPG. Despite extensive public comment that, because of the ongoing boom in domestic gas production, Maine has no need for a marine LPG import terminal, the Corps applied a presumption to assume–without independent evaluation or verification–that the DCP project was viable and needed in the marketplace. The Corps excluded from review any consideration of non-marine (i.e. rail or truck) terminals, alternative sources of LPG, alternative fuels, such as natural gas and compressed natural gas and alternative energy sources such as biomass and solar.

• The Corps’ permit relied on unsubstantiated emergency response claims and failed to adequately consider potentially devastating human and environmental risks.

• The Corps failed to acknowledge the impacts of the dredging which the proposed LPG facility would require–dredging close to one million cubic yards of sediment from the Mack Point vicinity.

• The EA failed to consider the potential use of the Searsport facility as an LPG export terminal. Under NEPA regulations, the Corps must consider direct, indirect and cumulative effects of a proposed action, including “reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.”

The entire 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue can be downloaded here.  Additional documents pertaining to the Army Corps of Engineers can be found on our Army Corps Docs page.

“There is no need for a new LPG import facility when existing U.S. marine LPG terminals are converting to export, ” declared Islesboro Selectmen Chair, Craig Olson. “For this and other reasons, the Islesboro Board of Selectmen urges the ACoE to withdraw its earlier Environmental Assessment and take a hard, fresh look at the proposed LPG marine import project as part of a full Environmental Impact Study analysis.”

You can read the full letter here.

In the last year, the production of U.S. domestic propane increased at a staggering rate. In the words of gas industry spokesperson Stephen Wilson (Bloomberg.com 2/14/2013), “We are seeing a game-changer because of this era of shale gas.” The dramatic increase has reduced propane prices in Maine and the U.S. to record lows and is so extensive that the U.S. is now exporting, not importing, LPG.

Two Maine LPG projects in late 2012 increased the state’s propane capacity and infrastructure by 43% from domestic sources, without detrimental environmental impact or the need for NEPA review. According to the Richard A. Clarke Good Harbor /Risk Assessment/, “gas export would completely alter the risks posed by gas development at Searsport,” creating exponentially more propane traffic on roads, rails and ships plying Penobscot Bay.

“Numerous cost effective and environmentally preferable alternatives to importation of foreign propane already exist or are underway to provide energy sources where needed,” noted Islesboro Islands Trust’s Steve Miller. These alternatives include the following: 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 Islesboro Board of Selectmen shared a copy of the letter  with the U.S. Congressional delegation from Maine and all Towns in the Penobscot Bay region. They await a response from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

To view the web version of the story, go to:

http://nyti.ms/USyOTp

Richard A. Clarke Letter to Searsport Planning Board

(Islesboro Islands Trust retained Mr. Clarke’s services last summer to provide a risk assessment of the proposed LPG facility in Searsport. DCP Searsport LLC, the corporation proposing to build the facility, refused to provide the public with any information about exposure to dangers the facility would bring).

Islesboro Letter to Searsport Planning Board (PDF)

The letter says, “At a January 23, 2013 special meeting, the Islesboro Board of Selectmen passed a resolution requesting that you (1) acknowledge the many safety and security shortcomings of the LPG facility proposed by DCP Searsport LLC enumerated by Good Harbor Techmark in their assessment and (2) apply those findings to the Searsport Land Use and Site Plan Review Ordinance standards, resulting in (3) denying land use and site plan permits because of the plethora of safety issues.”

The Islesboro BOS also appointed Selectman Arch Gillies to speak on the Board’s behalf in this matter.

The letter will be sent to the Searsport Planning Board, all Towns in the Penobscot Bay area, the four Maine Members of Congress, Waldo County Commissioners, and Maine State Representatives from the region.

The letter goes on to note that, “The Good Harbor assessment confirms our own Public Safety Officer’s awareness that local and regional, mutual aid emergency response capabilities, which Searsport proposes to rely upon, are insufficient to protect people and infrastructure in the event of a LPG emergency… We should not put our dedicated and quietly heroic emergency personnel in harm’s way because of the proposed LPG facility. We urge you to deny this permit.”

Good Harbor, with internationally recognized safety and security expert Richard A Clarke as principal investigator, reports that a blast event at the facility would extend well beyond the DCP site onto Route 1 and significant parts of Searsport, engulfing people and property. A LPG tanker explosion along the transportation route through Penobscot Bay would have a similar effect on one or more communities nearby, including Islesboro which is within several of the USCG’s Zones of Concern.

Clarke and Good Harbor will present oral testimony in Searsport on February 11 when the Searsport Planning Board hearing on the LPG application reconvenes.