Safety/Security Assessment: Proposed Broadwater LNG Facility

Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.

October 7, 2005 The Department of Transportation RE: USCG 2005-21863 The Proposed Broadwater LNG Facility Via Electronic Transmission Dear Sirs/Mesdames: The League of Women Voters of Greenwich, Connecticut appreciates the opportunity to comment on the application to construct an offshore liquid natural gas facility (“LNG”), named Broadwater Energy (“Broadwater”), in Long Island Sound. Our League is large and it is vocal. Our members strongly believe that Broadwater should be denied for a number of very crucial reasons. Broadwater presents an unnecessary safety risk. Broadwater states that: “LNG shipping has an excellent safety record reflecting over 40 years of experience.” Ours is a different world than it was 40 years ago. In 2001, we learned that a few committed, ruthless individuals could murder thousands of people. We thought, as a nation, that we had enough security measures in place to keep us from harm. We learned in a severe way that we did not. When asked repeatedly why they do not want to locate the LNG on land, Broadwater has said that they don’t want to take the risk of endangering too many people. They themselves know that the project could have dangerous consequences. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we learned the importance of workable plans to evacuate thousands of people, treat the injured and relocate those who have lost their homes. This area has had hurricanes before. They are not uncommon. What will happen if a hurricane hits the Broadwater platform? The area surrounding Long Island Sound is one of the most densely populated areas in our nation. Broadwater has no plan for natural occurrences or evacuations. Our League further believes that Broadwater would greatly jeopardize an estuary of national significance. Long Island Sound is a fragile ecosystem, which has been illustrated in one example by the recent and extensive lobster die-offs. It is already a stressed environment. Further development in the Sound would create even more. Commercial fisherman, recreational boaters, freighters and ferries have free movement within defined “rules of the road.” If approved, a security zone surrounding the facility would create a vast field around it that would keep the LNG facility and the tankers traveling to and from it off limits to any other use, in essence creating private property in the middle of our region’s greatest public resource. We further understand that Broadwater uses the argument that liquid natural gas is cleaner than using other sources of fuel. But Broadwater is not proposing this LNG to replace oil, coal or diesel. They are proposing this project to create more capacity. This action does not encourage conservation or the use of alternative forms of energy such as wind and solar. It merely makes consumerism more irresponsible. The League of Women Voters of Greenwich is grateful that we can count on the bravery and efficiency of the U.S. Coast Guard in protecting us in times of trouble and crisis. The Coast Guard is the guardian of Long Island Sound. Although the Coast Guard’s shoulders are broad, they should not have to bear the unnecessarily grave risks associated with the development of the Broadwater facility. All of us, together, must protect against such emergencies before they occur. Not afterward. We strongly urge you to deny the Broadwater proposal. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Donna M. Nickitas, President League of Women Voters of Greenwich Eileen B. White, Vice President, Advocacy League of Women Voters of Greenwich