Posted on 10/11/2005 9:17:05 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
LONG BEACH — Beginning next month, the public will get an opportunity to support or oppose a controversial proposed liquefied natural gas terminal at the port that a federal study has deemed "environmentally acceptable."
Though the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released a preliminary environmental impact report of the project last week, the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners officially made the study available to the public at the regular Monday meeting.
The report can be downloaded from the Port of Long Beach Web site (www.polb.com) and viewed at the city clerk's office or any city library branch.
The board of commissioners will respond to the report after the public comment phase ends in December.
The $450 million terminal has been a flashpoint for controversy since its initial proposal in 2003 by Long Beach-based Sound Energy Solutions.
LNG, a supercooled form of methane, would be delivered to the Port of Long Beach terminal, reheated and moved as natural gas along pipelines built from the site.
The terminal is expected to produce upwards of 400 construction-related jobs, according to the draft federal environmental impact report.
SES officials estimate that the terminal could provide up to 10 percent of the state's natural gas needs.
But opponents say such a facility would make an area already considered a terrorist target, more attractive. And they say accidents can always occur. Many of them believe safety considerations should be paramount.
"I'm scared … about if this puppy were to go off," said Carol McCafferty, 70, a resident who attended the meeting. "It's a scary proposition."
The environmental impact report concluded that the terrorist threat was not significant enough to shelve the project.
Although the federal government will have a say over regulatory issues, the Harbor Commission will have ultimate say over whether to approve a lease for SES to operate the terminal.
The City Council has not yet taken a position on the proposed terminal.
In August, the council voted 5-4 to wait until the environmental impact report was released before deciding whether to support or oppose the project.
SES is a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corp. and ConocoPhillips.
The public comment phase will last 60 days, rather than the usual 45-day period for such a report, and ends in December.
The report can be downloaded from the Port of Long Beach Web site (www.polb.com) and viewed at the city clerk's office or any city library branch.
I got to see one of those tankers passing at sea. Beautiful piece of human construction.
Anyone who is against it must be heartless, certainly not a dreamer.
Twenty years ago I was trained for LNG and drooled at the model of a twin screw methane powered LNG tanker that was to run from Alaska to US West Coast. EnviroNazis stopped the project then. We'll see what if any is different now.
Regulatory Review of Proposed LNG Terminal
Sound Energy Solutions, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corp. of Japan, is proposing to build and operate a $400 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal at the Port of Long Beach.
Sited to occupy 25 acres at the southeast end of Terminal Island, the terminal would provide about 10 percent of California’s needs for the cleaner-burning fuel. When cooled to minus 260 degrees, natural gas becomes a liquid. LNG would be shipped primarily from Pacific Rim countries to Long Beach, where the liquid would be gradually warmed until it is again a gas. The proposed terminal also would have a facility for distributing LNG in its liquid form.
Construction cannot begin without the approval of local, state and federal authorities, and after a thorough review of the issues. Since fall 2003, Port staff, other government regulators and representatives of SES have held meetings to inform the community about the possible scope and impacts of the project.
In October 2005, the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have jointly released for public review and comment a draft version of an environmental impact study. (To view the documents, click here.) A final decision may not come until late 2006.
The Port of Long Beach is acting as the lead environmental review agency for the state. The federal government regulates LNG, so a federal review process is required in addition to a state review. Instead of two separate environmental reviews, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Port agreed to combine the reviews into a single comprehensive document.
Start of the Process
Before the review could begin, SES had to obtain a letter of intent from the Port saying that a place to build the terminal was available and reserved for a finite period. This was done in 2003.
SES also applied for a Harbor Development Permit from the Port, which is required before starting any construction. This permit has its own application and review process that is running concurrently with the federal and state environmental process. SES will need approval from the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners to obtain this permit.
Once the joint environmental review was decided on, staff from the Port, FERC and SES met to develop a plan identifying potential impacts, people who might be affected, and how to include these potentially affected people in the review process.
These plans led to an SES-sponsored public workshop in September 2003. Public comments from the meeting were included in a “notice of preparation” that opened the “scoping” phase of the project. During this phase, the Port, SES and FERC held a public meeting in October 2003 to gather additional input and decide on the scope of the environmental review.
The Port and FERC staff have prepared a draft of the joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement that includes discussions of issues raised during the scoping phase. The document examines possible safety risks; alternative plans for the project; potential air, noise or visual pollution; any cultural or historic impact; and other possible impacts. The document also discusses mitigation of the potential impacts.
The Next Steps
With the release of the draft EIR/EIS, FERC will send the document to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Register, automatically triggering another public comment period. Written comments will be accepted during this 60-day period. This period culminated with a series of public meeting in the Port area where the public can comment in person.
Following this meeting, the Port and FERC will formally respond to each of the comments in the Final EIS/EIR. This process could take several months. The final version of the EIS/EIR could be released in mid 2006.
Following a review of the final version, FERC will vote on the project. The commission meets in Washington, D.C. Although its meeting will be open to the public, the commission will not take additional public comment.
The environmental review is only one aspect of the total review and permitting process. Construction projects in the Port cannot begin without Harbor Commission approval of a Harbor Development Permit. The public will have a chance to comment on this permit at any of the Board’s weekly meetings before the permit comes up for a vote.
However, before the Port can issue a permit, it will need to amend its land-use master plan. The amendment needs the approval of the California Coastal Commission. The amendment process will take four to six months after the completion of the environ-mental review.
The U.S. Coast Guard also must review and approve any vessel safety and mooring plans for the terminal. This can happen at any time during the permitting processes.
A final nod will have to come from the Board of Harbor Commissioners. The five-member board will have to decide whether to issue the development permit. If it does, the commission will have to negotiate, approve and sign a permanent lease with SES before construction begins.
Only if SES obtains all of the required permits, approvals and lease could the firm move forward with the terminal's projected 36-month construction schedule, with an opening no earlier than 2010.
Here's a crazy thought - why don't they make tankers that are submarines? Lowering the profile is always a good thing.
A tanker-sub could ride out storms very easily, since subs are practically immune to surface weather.
Long Beach (Signal Hill?) has an enormous natural gas tank about 100 yards from the 405 freeway and many tank farms too.
(From www.lbreport.com)
From the image seen on that link, I am barely safely outside the 3-mile range. This port conglomerate, the largest in the US, is already a top terrorist target.
Cool pics! :-)
Are you talking about the big, old, silver-colored tank that was up on the hill near the Cherry Street exit on the 405? If that is the one you are thinking of, it was a water tank and it is now gone, cut up and capped off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.