A federal judge in Boston Monday cleared the path for liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments to enter Boston Harbor and be off-loaded at Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC’s terminal in Everett, MA, concluding that there was “no discernible claim” by the city of Boston that the LNG tankers posed a threat in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes.

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino had sought a temporary injunction on Friday to halt the LNG shipments, arguing that the tankers were a potential hazard to the city and four communities that border the harbor. U.S. District Court Judge Reginald Lindsay directed the attorneys for the city, U.S. Coast Guard and Distrigas’ parent company, Tractebel LNG Shipping North American LLC, to meet over the weekend to mediate the dispute. The parties met briefly on Sunday, but were unable to come to a resolution, according to Menino’s press spokeswoman Lisa Pollack.

In the wake of Monday’s ruling, Menino decided not to appeal based on what Judge Lindsay told parties, prior to issuing his decision — he thought the matter was best addressed outside of the courts, said Peter Nagle, another press aide for the mayor. Menino yesterday telephoned Homeland Security Office Director Tom Ridge “seeking his intervention in this case,” he noted. “I don’t believe the two have spoken about the matter yet,” however.

The city and the four communities — Everett, Chelsea, Somerville and Nedford — wanted to keep at sea an 860-foot LNG tanker, which was due to arrive in Boston Harbor at 7 p.m. Monday, until the city could be assured that its public safety and emergency crews could handle a possible terrorist attack on the vessels. The tanker bound from Trinidad was said to be transporting 33 million gallons of LNG.

“This is not in opposition to Distrigas and it is not in opposition to LNG. This is about people. Boston Harbor is unusual in that it can be very residential,” said Pollack.

She claimed that the Coast Guard, which lifted its post-Sept. 11 ban against Distrigas LNG shipments in the harbor earlier this month, has refused to let the city view first-hand the security plan that it — along with state and federal agencies — designed to protect communities along the harbor in the event of a terrorist attack on an LNG vessel.

“In as far as I know, the Coast Guard has devised their own plan and has not shared that with the city” and its fire and police departments, Pollack told NGI.

In a prepared statement, Distrigas President Rick Grant said “we look forward to working with the city of Boston, as well as with representatives from surrounding communities, to satisfy any legitimate concerns they may have and to assure them of the comprehensiveness of our safety and security procedures.”

Despite Boston’s claims to the contrary, Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta contends that Distrigas “has worked closely” with local police and fire officials — as well as the Coast Guard, Department of Energy (DOE) and state/local governments — to step up security at its LNG terminal in Everett, and to ensure the safe transportation of LNG through Boston Harbor.

Although the DOT’s Coast Guard has sole authority over the safe and secure transportation of LNG supplies, its decision in late September to impose a ban on LNG shipments through the harbor was made in consultation with the DOE, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), Massachusetts Office of Public Safety, Boston Emergency Management Agency (BEMA), Everett Fire and Police Departments, Boston Fire Department, Massachusetts National Guard and Distrigas, he said (Daily GPI, Sept. 28).

In seeking to halt the shipments, the agencies, known formally as the Unified Command, had determined that “there were credible incident scenarios that could overwhelm [their] capability to respond” to a post-Sept. 11 terrorist attack. The freeze on LNG shipments in Boston Harbor was lifted earlier this month.

“The Everett Fire and Police Departments have primary responsibility for onshore response to an accident or attack at the Distrigas terminal. The [Coast Guard] would respond from the waterside and would work to rescue personnel, contain the situation and control traffic,” Mineta explained. “Currently, heavily armed Everett Police Department officers are stationed around the plant.”

In a letter last Friday, the DOT secretary responded to a number of questions posed last month by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) about the safety and security of LNG transportation, following the terrorist attacks in New York City and suburban Washington, DC.

Mineta’s answers seemed to directly contradict Boston Mayor Menino’s claims that Boston and other local communities weren’t consulted about stepped-up security measures for LNG transport in Boston Harbor, and, in fact, have not seen the final post-attack plan devised by the Coast Guard and federal and state agencies.

In addition to the Coast Guard, Mineta noted that a number of other DOT agencies have jurisdiction over ensuring the safety/security of LNG transportation and Distrigas’ Everett terminal/storage facilities: the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As for agencies outside of DOT that have oversight, he said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was responsible for LNG facility siting, environmental reviews, construction authorization, and for issuing certificates for import and export of LNG.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, Mineta said the FAA has imposed specific flight restrictions on the entire Boston area Class B airspace as a security precaution. “The nature of this airspace would prohibit indiscriminate flights over the LNG storage facility.”

Moreover, the DOE has commissioned Quest Consultants Inc., an engineering firm, to perform a study to analyze the threat that would result from a five-meter diameter hole in an LNG tanker on a vessel. It already “has performed some initial calculations to quantify the gas dispersion and fire scenarios that could follow a large release from the LNG storage tanks,” Mineta told Markey. DOE also plans to contract with a national laboratory to study the potential hazard in the event of a small projectile coming into contact with the onshore facilities, he said.

Mineta indicated that Distrigas’ terminal facilities have had a fairly good safety record over the years. Of the three major inspections conducted at Distrigas, he said there was “only one reportable incident, which involved a minor gasket failure and release of LNG in March 1988, and did not result in a fire or any injuries.”

©Copyright 2001 Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.