Eastport, ME (pop. 2,000), may be “the easternmost city in the United States,” but that’s no reason its concerns about the proposed Quoddy Bay liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal should be swept from the map, according to a letter to FERC from a former rear admiral and assistant surgeon general with the U.S. Public Health Service.

Writing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Wednesday, Brian W. Flynn claims, in a little more than six pages, that Quoddy Bay LNG LLC was “inaccurate and insensitive” in its response to a late protest to its project filed on June 21 by Eastport.

“To virtually dismiss Eastport’s concerns because the numbers of its residents are not as great as Boston or other cities I believe communicates a bias that [says] ‘because your numbers [are] fewer, you are not as important, your concerns are not as important, and risks thrust upon you by LNG are not as important,” wrote Flynn.

Flynn’s biography at the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress says he was an early mental health responder following the World Trade Center attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and a special consultant following the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

His missive comes in response to a more than 80-page filing by Quoddy Bay made on July 6 in response to the June 21 protest filed by Eastport [Docket CP07-35]. Quoddy asserts in its filing that “Eastport chose to not participate in the ERP [Emergency Response Plan] process or any of the many and varied meetings regarding the proposed Quoddy Bay facilities that is part of the overall project review.” Quoddy calls Eastport out for being a Johnny come lately to the FERC process, filing its protest “fully six months after the filing of the NGA section 3 and 7 applications and a year and five months after the initiation of the National Environmental Policy Act pre-filing procedures…”

Quoddy Bay is seeking FERC approval to build a 2 Bcf LNG import terminal on a Native American reservation at Split Rock, ME, and a storage project in Perry, ME. The 15-acre site abuts the Passamaquoddy and Cobscook bays. The LNG would have to travel through Canadian waters to reach Quoddy Bay’s terminal site, and Canada is staunchly opposed to the project (see Daily GPI, June 20; April 9). Tiny Eastport takes issue with the terminal on similar grounds, particularly with regard to safety and disaster response.

And the town has an advocate in Flynn, much of whose “career has been spent in preparation for, and response to, natural and human caused emergencies and disasters.”

Flynn criticizes Quoddy for purporting to have a “close working relationship with the USCG [U.S. Coast Guard]” and allegedly downplaying concerns raised by the Coast Guard.

“The tone of Quoddy Bay LNG’s response to Eastport’s concerns, their failure to accurately characterize their relationship to the USCG, and their complete failure to even mention the complications inherent in proposing a project in the face of Canada’s opposition speaks volumes about the integrity of, and nature of future dealings with, Quoddy Bay LNG,” wrote Flynn.

Further, through his own analysis of the consequences of an LNG catastrophe at the Quoddy Bay site and the emergency resources currently available in the region, Flynn concludes that mitigating and preparing for such an event is a practical impossibility. “By considering distance, geography, capacity, specialty care capability, and jurisdictional complexity, it is intuitively obvious that the capacity does not exist to adequately deal with an MCI [mass casualty incident] caused by LNG in the Passamaquoddy Bay region.

“It is difficult to imagine a credible analysis that would indicate that the region is adequately prepared to meet health and medical needs in the event of an LNG-related MCI.”

Still, Quoddy Bay maintains the safety concerns have been addressed and the city of Eastport would have known that had it chosen to participate in discussions.

“Eastport has thus deprived itself of up-to-date information regarding the project and its built-in safety protections, its potential impact upon Eastport, and the safety measures and ERP that Quoddy Bay is proposing related to ship traffic, docking, construction and operation of its LNG import facility, storage facility and corresponding sendout pipeline and the safety concerns of nearby communities,” Quoddy Bay said in its filing. “Even following the submittal of the protest, the Eastport City Council rejected a request by Quoddy Bay to have a comprehensive meeting with the council to discuss the issues that have been raised and give Eastport the opportunity to participate yet again in the review process.”

©Copyright 2007Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.