Is the Big Tank nightmare over?
On April 23rd, Jay Clement of the Army Corps of Engineers sent this letter to DCP Midstream's Rebecca Malloy, informing them that their Army Corps of Engineers permit for the Searsport LPG Tank is revoked.
This revocation was at the behest of the beaten energy giant, tails between its legs, humbled by the fortuitous but potent coming-together of Penobscot Bay-area environmental advocates, local citizenry of Searsport the threatened town, and pockets quite as deep as DCP's dotting the slender island that pierces the heart of Penobscot Bay: Islesboro.
Jay wrote:
"Dear Ms. Malloy:
"This concerns your Department of the Army permit, number NAE-2010-02347, that authorized the placement of fill below the ordinary high water line of an unnamed tributary to Long Cove and in adjacent freshwater wetlands at Searsport, Maine in order to develop a liquid propane storage and off loading facility on Mack Point.
"In a letter dated April 12, 2013, your Maine attorney indicated that you now have no
intention of proceeding with the project and that you wish to have the Corps revoke the permit.
"Furthermore, it is our understanding, based on conversations between your attorney and John Almeida of our Office of Counsel, that you do not wish to avail yourself of the opportunity to request a meeting with the District Engineer or a public hearing before a revocation decision is made.
"Therefore, in response to your request and in accordance with Title 33 CFR Part 325.7, your Department of the Army permit is revoked.
"If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Jay Clement at 207-623-8367 at our Manchester, Maine Project Office.
Jay Clement
ACOE
Showing posts with label DCP Midstream. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DCP Midstream. Show all posts
Apr 10, 2013
DCP Searsport's death throes continue. Company adds two more nails to its own coffin.
Two more twitches of the corpse of DCP Searsport were detected, one on April 5th and one April 9th, 2013:
The April 5th "Petition for Surrender of License", by Kelly Boden, DCP's soon-to-be-former Maine attorney, concludes with the following to Maine DEP Commissioner Patty Aho:
"Given that DCP has concluded that it is not going to construct the Project as permitted by the Department, pursuant to Section 23 of Chapter 2 of Department's rules, DCP hereby petitions to surrender the DEP Licenses. DCP has not commenced any on-site activities approved under the DEP Licenses and does not intend to do so in the future. DCP hereby waives any notice or opportunity for a hearing."
On April 9th, a "Notice of Withdrawal" was sent by soon-to-be-ex-DCP atty James Kilbreth to Jay Clement at the Army Corps of Engineers, announcing the death of the LPG tank proposal:
"DCP has petitioned to surrender its Maine DEP permits (attached). Although I understand that there is no formal mechanism to surrender the above-identified Army Corps permit, DCP has no intention of proceeding with the Project at this point. DCP has undertaken no activity with respect to the activities permitted by the Corps."
So long DCP! It appears that corporate rigor mortis is setting in. Let us turn DCP's picture to the wall, and contemplate how better our world without the (not-so) dearly departed!
The April 5th "Petition for Surrender of License", by Kelly Boden, DCP's soon-to-be-former Maine attorney, concludes with the following to Maine DEP Commissioner Patty Aho:
"Given that DCP has concluded that it is not going to construct the Project as permitted by the Department, pursuant to Section 23 of Chapter 2 of Department's rules, DCP hereby petitions to surrender the DEP Licenses. DCP has not commenced any on-site activities approved under the DEP Licenses and does not intend to do so in the future. DCP hereby waives any notice or opportunity for a hearing."
On April 9th, a "Notice of Withdrawal" was sent by soon-to-be-ex-DCP atty James Kilbreth to Jay Clement at the Army Corps of Engineers, announcing the death of the LPG tank proposal:
"DCP has petitioned to surrender its Maine DEP permits (attached). Although I understand that there is no formal mechanism to surrender the above-identified Army Corps permit, DCP has no intention of proceeding with the Project at this point. DCP has undertaken no activity with respect to the activities permitted by the Corps."
So long DCP! It appears that corporate rigor mortis is setting in. Let us turn DCP's picture to the wall, and contemplate how better our world without the (not-so) dearly departed!
Apr 9, 2013
DCP Down! The early resistance: September 2011
Back in the mists of time, DCP Midstream filed its first application with MDEP, following the Searport height elevation change. Below, a copy of Astrig Tanguay's September 9, 2011 letter to the Maine DEP, one of a number sent by local citizenry who, shortly after, coalesced into Thanks But No Tank!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Astrig Tanguay
Searsport Shores Campground
216 West Main Street
Searsport, ME 04974
Sept 9, 2011
Ms. Robin Clukey Project Manager
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
106 Hogan Road
Bangor, Maine 04401
Re DCP Midstream Applications L-025359-TG-B-N and L-025359--A-N.
Dear Ms Clukey
here are our comments on the DCP midstream LPG tank proposal.
Please contact me if you have any questions. My tel# is 548-6059
------------------------------
Ms. Robin Clukey Project Manager
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
106 Hogan Road
Bangor, Maine 04401.
Re DCP Midstream Applications L-025359-TG-B-N and L-025359--A-N.
Dear Ms Clukey
We are writing concerning the applications by DCP Midstream Partners LP to build and
operate an LPG terminal at Mack Point in Searsport, Maine. DCP proposes a 137-foot
high storage tank, 202 feet in diameter.
We are owners of Searsport shores campground and the DCP tank as proposed would
intrude into our scenic areas. This is not good for our business which brings many 1,000s of
guests. And we believe that Maine DEP should consider the wellbeing of existing businesses
before permitting a new one that could harm them including us.
The proposed tank farm would be visible from most of the part of Sears Island including the part under
conservation easement. The other third of the island faces directly on Mack Point and is
also heavily used by pedestrians for scenic appreciation and other recreational
purposes. Because the existing tank farms are lower than the horizon from the island,
they fit harmoniously into the environment’s viewshed and do not intrude into ours
DCP-Midstream’s proposed facility, by contrast, would be tall enough to emerge into
numerous protected scenic viewsheds of the bay region, including our campground.
It would violate the Natural Resources Act’s and Site Location of Development Act’s
requirements that a developer fit its development “harmoniously into the existing natural
environment”.
As detailed below, we urge the department to require the applicant to design its
proposal facility to fit as harmoniously as possible into the existing environment, by
limiting the elevation of the proposal LPG tank to a height similar to existing tank farms
of Mack Point, even if it requires two tanks instead of one. If the applicant declines to
amend its plan to be consistent with site law and the NRPA then the Department needs
to reject the application to protect irreplaceable resources that are presently generating
substantial economic activity in the area, including our business which also supports many
other businesses
Our campground like many other sectors of Penobscot Bay area economies are closely tied to the
natural character of the bay region. Quality of life, particularly scenic quality, are major
selling points for hundreds of area businesses from bed & breakfasts to cruise ships,
that employ and support thousands of area citizens and bring many more thousands to
enjoy Penobscot Bay
DCP Midstream and the Department have not as far as we can tell, given
sufficient consideration to the potential that the project, as proposed , will cause
permanent degradation of protected scenic vistas both near and distant from the
proposed project.
In the application before you, the developer proposes to exploit a recent Searsport
ordinance raising height limitation in that town. However, state laws, including the
Natural Resources Protection Act and the Site Location of Development Act, will trump
municipal ordinance when a dispute arises over protecting significant scenic resources
of local state or national significance , including those outside of the town of Searsport.
The proposed configuration would irretrievably degrade the unbroken natural skylines
that exist within most of the recreational and tourism areas of Searsport, Stockton
Springs, Islesboro, Deer Isle and other locations at greater distance . These are not
replaceable scenic assets.Many are very well known and reachable only by footpaths.
The existing tank farms are not visible from most scenic views including ours. In those area
views where they are visible, the existing tank farms are nestled below a hill and do not rise above the horizon, as DCP’s proposed facility would.
Because the applicant’s reasons for preferring a facility that does violate scenic
protection rules and statutes appear to be simply higher profits and not geographic
limitations or other necessity, the Department needs to require alternatives of either a
single smaller tank or two smaller tanks to meet its plans
The Site Location of Development Act 38 §481 et seq. (Site Law) applies to the DCP
Midstream oil tank proposal. The discretion of the Department must prevail over municipal
ordinance when it comes to determining whether a development project will cause irreparable
unnecessary impact to irreplaceable scenic aesthetic, recreational or navigational uses to be
unreasonable.
We strongly believe that in this case, the Department must find that the applicant has a
practicable alternative that would meet the project purpose and not result in adverse
impacts to existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational uses. Therefore, if the applicant fails
to adopt such an alternative , the Department must find that the impacts of this project
on scenic, aesthetic, recreational and navigational uses are unreasonable.
Sincerely
Astrig
Astrig and Steve Tanguay
Searsport Shores Campground
Searsport ME
Apr 2, 2013
DCP Midstream drops plan for Searsport supertank!
DCP is so....yesterday!Determined Mainers have prevailed against this well-heeled energy giant, convincing the town of Searsport's planning board that DCP midstream's proposed supertank would be unsafe for the people and bad for Penobscot Bay.
READ ALL ABOUT IT
Bangor Daily News (archived)
DCP Midstream drops plan for Searsport supertank!
DCP is so....yesterday!Determined Mainers have prevailed against this well-heeled energy giant, convincingt the town of Searsport's planning board that DCP midstream's proposed supertank would be unsafe for the people and bad for Penobscot Bay.
READ ALL ABOUT IT
More info go to tbnt.org and penbay.org
Mar 30, 2013
Searsport: DCP tank proposal unsafe, too noisy.
From: Waldo Village Soup, Belfast, Maine
Board finds tank proposal unsafe, too noisy
SEARSPORT — In the first night of Planning Board deliberations aimed at deciding whether to deny or approve an application for a 22.7 million gallon liquefied petroleum gas storage tank at Mack Point, the proposed project hit a snag.
Just before the Searsport Planning Board wrapped up its deliberations Wednesday night, March 27, the board took two votes in relation to how the proposal from Colorado-based DCP Midstream fits the town Land Use Ordinance, the board made two unanimous decisions — one stating the buildings and structures proposed for the industrial zone were permitted uses under the ordinance, but that portions of the project proposed for the neighboring commercial district were not.
Thanks But No Tank attorney Steve Hinchman addresses the Searsport Planning Board Wednesday night, March 27. At right is Anglers Restaurant attorney Ed Bearor.
Members of the audience appeared stunned by the finding — Searsport resident David Italiaander was one of them.
"They just voted this down," he said.
But earlier in the deliberations, Searsport Planning Board attorney Kristin Collins said even if the board finds reason to deny the application at any point in the process, the board must still complete the entire deliberation process.
"It could be overturned," said Collins.
Planning Board Member Lee Ann Horowitz expressed concern that the board may not be qualified to make a decision on such an involved proposal that has included briefs and testimony from attorneys for the applicant and project opponents, all of which offer the board very different interpretations of the project as it relates to town ordinances.
"I think this is way out of our league," Horowitz said. Horowitz went on to be the one vote against the motion stating the board has jurisdiction to consider the project.
"This is going to get challenged further," said Planning Board Chairman Bruce Probert.
"You've got to take a stab at it so someone else can tell us we're wrong," said Collins.
After the board votes on the rest of the standards set forth in the town’s land use ordinance, the board will move on to consider the merits of the project based on specifications in the site planning and shoreland zoning ordinances, Probert said. The final decision to either approve or deny the application will be made based on the consideration of those ordinances as well as the 18 performance standards the board must consider as they relate to the proposal, which address every aspect of the project from its impacts on air quality, and preserving and enhancing the landscape to lighting and visual buffering.
The first 90 minutes of the deliberations included oral arguments from interested parties, including James Kilbreth, attorney for DCP Midstream, Steve Hinchman, attorney for the opposition group Thanks But No Tank, Italiaander, who spoke about the market conditions for propane and suggested the project would likely be used as an export facility, and Ed Bearor, attorney for Anglers Restaurant.
March 28 deliberations
The meeting resumed Thursday, March 28, as planning board members resumed assessing whether the proposed LPG tank application meets the standards for the town’s land use ordinance.
Deliberations began with board members assessing whether DCP’s tank application met the standards for minimum lot size for commercial and industrial zones, property set back lines and road frontage. Board members voted 5-0 that those standards were met.
However, board members raised concerns with a number of the other standards including whether the project is in conformity with the town’s comprehensive plan.
Board member Mark Bradstreet questioned whether two votes could be taken on the issue: one vote for whether the project meets the standard for complying with the comprehensive plan in the commercial zone and a separate vote for whether it meets the standard in the industrial zone.
The motion to vote on each zone separately was approved before a motion was made that the application does not meet the standard for the commercial zone. Board members noted the fact that there are industrial uses — administrative office building, access road, fire water tank and pump— sited within the commercial zone.
A motion stating the application did not comply with the town’s comprehensive plan for the commercial zone was approved by a vote of 5-0.
The motion that the project does comply with the town’s comprehensive plan within the industrial zone was approved by a vote of 5-0.
Two issues were raised under performance standards regarding vibration and noise.
Under the land use ordinance, with the exception of vibration occurring during the construction or demolition of a building, the vibration will not be transmitted outside the lot where it originates.
As discussion began regarding whether there would be an issue of vibration being transmitted off of the property, board members questioned how to assess any potential impact. Without a study from the town, board members said they would have to rely on DCP’s application, which states there will be no vibration transmitted outside the lot, in order to rule on whether the application meets the standard.
The board eventually voted 5-0 that the standard was met before tackling the issue of “offensive noise.”
The land use ordinance states that no offensive noise will be transmitted beyond lot lines that would cause an unreasonable disturbance to neighboring residential properties.
That issue of “unreasonable” noise was questioned by board members who asked how to define what “unreasonable” would mean.
Collins explained that unreasonable noise could be considered noise that would result in complaints from neighbors; at which point Bradstreet pointed out that trucks waiting in the queue line at the facility could disturb neighbors.
Board member Brian Callahan made a motion that the application did not meet the noise standard, citing the fact he did not feel there was adequate buffering, especially where trucks would queue up, to mitigate noise.
He suggested the most effective barrier to mitigate noise would be to build a fence similar to the ones used on highways to reduce vehicle noise to nearby neighborhoods. However, Callahan was not in favor of such a fence saying they “look like hell.”
Board member George Kerper and Probert added that there were other noise issues to consider with the project in regards to use of the flare and whether the facility doors would be open in the summer, which could generate additional noise. It was also noted that weather conditions, like wind, could carry noise to nearby residences.
The board eventually passed a motion that the noise standard was not met based on concerns regarding truck noise, the flare, noise from the facility, weather conditions and the fact that a buffer cannot be put across the facility access road to mitigate any noise.
That motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
The final portion of the application the Board found objectionable Thursday was whether the project would result in unsafe or unhealthful conditions. Safety has consistently been an issue raised by board members and the general public throughout the course of the public hearings held in regards to the project.
While Bradstreet acknowledged the application meets the technical standards of the land use ordinance, he said the project is unsafe because it is too close to residences.
Probert agreed and said he was concerned with the blast zone radius if the tank were to ignite and that while the risk was low of a catastrophic event occurring the “consequence is tremendously high.”
Board members approved a motion that the application does not meet the standard for not creating unsafe and unhealthful conditions by a vote of 5-0.
Following the meeting, DCP spokeswoman Roz Elliott said in an email to The Republican Journal said that the company is “disappointed” by the board’s initial rulings, but will wait for the deliberations to conclude.
“We will await the remainder of the deliberations and then evaluate our options,” Elliott said in the email.
Members of the opposition group “Thanks, But No Tank,” were pleased with the outcome of Thursday night’s deliberations stating in a press release “unlike questions of zoning, nothing can be done at any town meeting (or anywhere else) that can change these findings on noise and safe and unhealthful standards. This is all good news, in fact virtually unthinkable at the beginning of the week.”
The planning board deliberations will continue Wednesday, April 3, at 6:30 p.m. at Union Hall in Searsport.
Mar 28, 2013
Searsport planning board votes against tank in first decision of long deliberation proces
Posted March 27, 2013, at 10:30 p.m. Bangor Daily News
SEARSPORT, Maine — An audience of about 100 people in Searsport’s Union Hall Wednesday evening listened closely as the town’s planning board began its deliberations on the controversial liquid propane gas project proposed for the Mack Point industrial zone.
 |
| DCP's lawyers, glum for a change. |
Flying knitting needles slowed and residents leaned closer to the board members as they voted at about 9 p.m. on the very first motion put forward in regard to the land use ordinance — that the buildings that would be erected in the town’s commercial district are not permitted in the zone for which they are proposed.
And in a unanimous show of hands, the five members of the Searsport Planning Board members voted in favor of that motion.
“They just voted this down,” a stunned David Italiaander, an opponent who has interested party status, whispered after the board made its vote. “They just denied the permit. I could dance, but [the board] said no demonstrations.”
Italiaander’s words, though likely very premature, were echoed by many of the project opponents in the room. Longtime Planning Board Chairman Bruce Probert said after the meeting was adjourned that the board members will “revisit all of it.” After the board members go through and vote on the remainder of the town’s land use ordinances in relation to the propane tank and terminal proposal, they will then go through the site planning and shoreland zoning ordinances. The ultimate decision will be made based on the 18 performance standards laid out in the town ordinance. Those standards touch on air quality, soil erosion, water pollution,exterior lighting and preserving and enhancing the landscape, among other points.
Efforts after the meeting to speak with representatives from DCP Midstream, the company which has proposed building a $40-million, 14-story-tall propane gas terminal and storage tank, were unsuccessful. The project has received permits from agencies including the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It awaits only the decision from the all-volunteer Searsport planning board, whose members have heard hours and hours of testimony and been reading thousands of pages of briefs and written comments in preparation for the deliberations.
Probert said last weekend that the planning board will meet on several more occasions before making a final decision, with the next meeting scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Thursday at Union Hall. He expects the final decision to be made this spring.
“It’s all part of the process,” he said.
Planning Board alternate Lee-Ann Horowitz said at the very beginning of the board’s deliberations that she believes the board is not the right governing body to make a decision. She was the sole member to vote against Searsport having jurisdiction in the matter.
“I think this whole procedure should be dealt with in another venue completely,” she said. “It’s way out of our league.”
Kristin Collins, the planning board’s attorney, said that they had to try.
“We have to take a stab at it, so someone can tell us we’re wrong,” she said.
The first portion of Wednesday night’s meeting was taken up by final arguments from the interested parties, including DCP Midstream; Italiaander; Ed Bearor, the attorney for the owner of Angler’s Restaurant; and Steve Hinchman, attorney for opposition group Thanks But No Tank.
Mar 21, 2013
TBNT & IIT file notice of intent to sue Army Corps over its DCP approvals.
SEARSPORT. On Wednesday, March 20th, Thanks But No Tank (TBNT) and Islesboro Islands Trust (IIT) filed a 60-day Notice of Intent to sue the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA).
These violations occurred when the Corps issued the May 2012 Environmental Assessment (EA) and CWA Section 404 permit for a 22.7 million gallon liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) marine import terminal, storage and distribution facility proposed by DCP Searsport LLC.
 |
| DCP's proposed megatank site: forest in center foreground |
These violations occurred when the Corps issued the May 2012 Environmental Assessment (EA) and CWA Section 404 permit for a 22.7 million gallon liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) marine import terminal, storage and distribution facility proposed by DCP Searsport LLC.
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.
Mar 7, 2013
Searsport: did "independent consultant Neal Frangesh have conflict of interest when advising town on DCP megatank?
In this 3/7/13 letter, activist Nancy Galland summarizes her findings about "independent consultant" Neal Frangesh's background and behavior advising the town of Searsport about DCP, which suggess he has a conflict of interest that marred his value to the town. This was also published in the Republican Journal 3/6/13
PUBLIC HEARING REVEALS POSSIBLE FRANGESH CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The front page article last week on the final Searsport Planning Board public hearing for the DCP mega-tank was replete with quotes and detailed descriptions of the lively exchanges that night of Feb. 25. I was, however, puzzled by the omission of one very important testimony given early on in the public comment period. I am hoping this was simply an oversight, but “censorship by omission” is not uncommon. Admittedly, the issue has serious implications, and I hope this column will correct that omission.
I was about 10th in the lineup of about 50 who wanted to testify. What I had to say implicates “something rotten in Denmark,” as Shakespeare might say. There is a crack in what appears to be a democratic process. It is of utmost importance that people are aware of this endemic issue.
Here are excerpts from my testimony:
“In the beginning, DCP objected to the idea of the Board hiring an independent consultant. In response, Mr. Probert stated that he wanted someone who knew more than he did about these things to advise the Board. Then he chose Mr. Frangesh, who is an LPG/LNG industry consultant, who had no experience in advising municipal boards, and who has worked for DCP. Mr. Probert decided this was not a conflict of interest. “
I went on to point out that Mr. Frangesh had signed “a conflict of interest avoidance statement, promising that he won’t work for DCP until either (1) project completion (2) project termination or (3) 12/31/14. Clearly, he intends to go back to work for DCP.”
“During these hearings,” I continued, “more often than not, when Mr. Probert asked if there were any questions after testimonies were submitted, only silence could be heard from Mr. Frangesh. His silence frustrated some of the Board members; they weren’t getting what they needed from their consultant, he was too quiet. I have this on good authority.
"But why was the engineering consultant so silent throughout most of the hearings?
And why, when he did have something to say, was it invariably as an apologist for DCP?”
(In fact, when Mr.Frangesh gave his evaluation of the site plan that night, he sat at the DCP table, receiving advice from the DCP lawyers. He found no problems with the site plan. When a member of Thanks But No Tank began to cross-examine the consultant, Mr. Probert gaveled him down, telling him to submit his questions in writing. The public would hear neither these critical questions nor the responses.)
My testimony continued:
“Even though Mr. Frangesh was hired by the Planning Board as an independent consultant, the $25,000 for his services was paid to the town by DCP.
“This is an oxymoron: how independent can a person be when his paycheck comes from an interested party? And how independent can he be when he’s worked for DCP in the past and, as evidenced in his “avoidance” statement, he intends to do business with them in the future?
"To paraphrase E.B. White, “It’s hard to stand up to someone when you know he holds your next paycheck.”
"The Planning Board’s next step is to sequester themselves from all outside inputs while they examine the evidence. They can, however, call upon experts for clarifications or missing information. Neal Frangesh should not be among those experts. He is not independent, he has proven his prejudice consistently.
"I hearby call upon the Searsport Planning Board to dismiss Neal Frangesh on grounds of failing in his duty to perform adequately as an independent engineering consultant to the Planning Board on behalf of the citizens of Searsport. Mr. Frangesh has failed throughout these hearings in raising critical questions about the DCP Midstream proposal and in specific incidences, his only comments have been in defense of DCP’s interests. Thank you.”
For 10 nights of previous public hearings the Planning Board sat implacably, patiently, through up to four hours of testimonies from DCP representatives, intervenors from various organizations, and the general public. The “general public” was always last on the agenda, but the Planning Board’s frequent willingness to extend the time another half hour or so was appreciated: it felt like small-town democracy in action.
Even the most recalcitrant skeptics who believed the Planning Board had been “bought” by DCP were softening. This last night, however, shed a bright light on the underpinnings of undue influence. What are we to think when a key cross-examination is shut down, the voices of the public are silenced, and a clear conflict of interest is unveiled?
Nancy Galland is a resident of Stockton Springs who testified at a recent Searsport Planning Board hearing on the proposal for an LPG tank there.http://waldo.
PUBLIC HEARING REVEALS POSSIBLE FRANGESH CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The front page article last week on the final Searsport Planning Board public hearing for the DCP mega-tank was replete with quotes and detailed descriptions of the lively exchanges that night of Feb. 25. I was, however, puzzled by the omission of one very important testimony given early on in the public comment period. I am hoping this was simply an oversight, but “censorship by omission” is not uncommon. Admittedly, the issue has serious implications, and I hope this column will correct that omission.
I was about 10th in the lineup of about 50 who wanted to testify. What I had to say implicates “something rotten in Denmark,” as Shakespeare might say. There is a crack in what appears to be a democratic process. It is of utmost importance that people are aware of this endemic issue.
Here are excerpts from my testimony:
“In the beginning, DCP objected to the idea of the Board hiring an independent consultant. In response, Mr. Probert stated that he wanted someone who knew more than he did about these things to advise the Board. Then he chose Mr. Frangesh, who is an LPG/LNG industry consultant, who had no experience in advising municipal boards, and who has worked for DCP. Mr. Probert decided this was not a conflict of interest. “
I went on to point out that Mr. Frangesh had signed “a conflict of interest avoidance statement, promising that he won’t work for DCP until either (1) project completion (2) project termination or (3) 12/31/14. Clearly, he intends to go back to work for DCP.”
“During these hearings,” I continued, “more often than not, when Mr. Probert asked if there were any questions after testimonies were submitted, only silence could be heard from Mr. Frangesh. His silence frustrated some of the Board members; they weren’t getting what they needed from their consultant, he was too quiet. I have this on good authority.
"But why was the engineering consultant so silent throughout most of the hearings?
And why, when he did have something to say, was it invariably as an apologist for DCP?”
(In fact, when Mr.Frangesh gave his evaluation of the site plan that night, he sat at the DCP table, receiving advice from the DCP lawyers. He found no problems with the site plan. When a member of Thanks But No Tank began to cross-examine the consultant, Mr. Probert gaveled him down, telling him to submit his questions in writing. The public would hear neither these critical questions nor the responses.)
My testimony continued:
“Even though Mr. Frangesh was hired by the Planning Board as an independent consultant, the $25,000 for his services was paid to the town by DCP.
“This is an oxymoron: how independent can a person be when his paycheck comes from an interested party? And how independent can he be when he’s worked for DCP in the past and, as evidenced in his “avoidance” statement, he intends to do business with them in the future?
"To paraphrase E.B. White, “It’s hard to stand up to someone when you know he holds your next paycheck.”
"The Planning Board’s next step is to sequester themselves from all outside inputs while they examine the evidence. They can, however, call upon experts for clarifications or missing information. Neal Frangesh should not be among those experts. He is not independent, he has proven his prejudice consistently.
"I hearby call upon the Searsport Planning Board to dismiss Neal Frangesh on grounds of failing in his duty to perform adequately as an independent engineering consultant to the Planning Board on behalf of the citizens of Searsport. Mr. Frangesh has failed throughout these hearings in raising critical questions about the DCP Midstream proposal and in specific incidences, his only comments have been in defense of DCP’s interests. Thank you.”
For 10 nights of previous public hearings the Planning Board sat implacably, patiently, through up to four hours of testimonies from DCP representatives, intervenors from various organizations, and the general public. The “general public” was always last on the agenda, but the Planning Board’s frequent willingness to extend the time another half hour or so was appreciated: it felt like small-town democracy in action.
Even the most recalcitrant skeptics who believed the Planning Board had been “bought” by DCP were softening. This last night, however, shed a bright light on the underpinnings of undue influence. What are we to think when a key cross-examination is shut down, the voices of the public are silenced, and a clear conflict of interest is unveiled?
Nancy Galland is a resident of Stockton Springs who testified at a recent Searsport Planning Board hearing on the proposal for an LPG tank there.http://waldo.
Mar 1, 2013
February 25, 2013 Public Hearing on DCP Midstream LPG tank plan,
February 25, 2013 Searsport Public Hearing on DCP Midstream LPG tank plan. Audio Recordings (mp3s)
* Introduction 1min 45sec Part 1 Bud Rivers
* Steve Hinchman_v_Bud Rivers_30min25sec
* James Kilbreth_Bud Rivers_11min30sec
Part 2 Neil Frangesh
* Neil_Frangesh_pt1_10min29sec
* Neil_Frangesh_pt2_12min19sec.mp3
* neil_Frangesh_qa1_7min27sec
* Neil_Frangesh_qa2_12min12sec
Part 3 Public Speakers
* Pt3_intro2_amendmt_controlroon_4min17sec
* intro_housekeeping1_4min
* pubspeaker1_ann flack_petition_3min46sec
* pubspeaker2_mark lomond_2min55sec
* pubspeaker3_catherine_robin_3min5sec
* Introduction 1min 45sec Part 1 Bud Rivers
* Steve Hinchman_v_Bud Rivers_30min25sec
* James Kilbreth_Bud Rivers_11min30sec
Part 2 Neil Frangesh
* Neil_Frangesh_pt1_10min29sec
* Neil_Frangesh_pt2_12min19sec.mp3
* neil_Frangesh_qa1_7min27sec
* Neil_Frangesh_qa2_12min12sec
Part 3 Public Speakers
* Pt3_intro2_amendmt_controlroon_4min17sec
* intro_housekeeping1_4min
* pubspeaker1_ann flack_petition_3min46sec
* pubspeaker2_mark lomond_2min55sec
* pubspeaker3_catherine_robin_3min5sec
* pubspeaker9_ridgely_fuller_3min16sec
* pubspeaker10_matt_summer_1min51sec
No speaker 11
* pubspeaker12_nancy_galland_6min57
* pubspeaker10_matt_summer_1min51sec
No speaker 11
* pubspeaker12_nancy_galland_6min57
Feb 12, 2013
Good Harbor says DCP stay out of Searsport Harbor
from Thanks But No Tank, Bangor Daily News' story and other sources
GOOD HARBOR REPORT: LPG should stay out of Searsport Harbor
Richard A. Clarke was unable to travel to the Searsport hearing last night.
The presentation was done by Frank Gallagher and Mike Lucy, co-authors of the All Hazard Risk Assessment for Searsport. Their message that the Board should deny the project, was heard loud and clear by everyone in attendance:
No strategies for dire scenarios. If fire or explosion take place at the $40 million, 23-million-gallon tank that DCP Midstream wants to build at Mack Point Industrial Zone, who would pay for the firefighting equipment and training? How would project neighbors evacuate the blast zone? Who will ensure that verbal agreements are followed through?
Mack Point site too small: T-he site is too small to be safe (and there is no way to make it bigger); the facility is too close to residences, businesses, and Route 1; the community lacks the necessary emergency response capabilities; and the Searsport channel is not deep enough. They went further to discuss how a detailed analysis of plans should not be left after the permit is granted. At that point, as Lucy paraphrased Clarke, “the train has left the station” and can’t be turned back—that is to say too many crucial questions are still unanswered but the project is underway.
Current LPG markets They also brought to the board’s attention the current markets with LPG imports and exports. Another key point they made is this facility would be denied for an LNG permit by the federal government’s standards and essentially LPG and LNG act in much the same way as flammable materials. As Frank Gallagher put it, the difference is between burning yourself with fire from a match or burning yourself on a hot stove, the result is the same. The big picture question still remains: why would Searsport ever want this facility—knowing the inherent risks involved??
U.S. Coast Guard Captain Moore
We heard also from U.S. Coast Guard Captain Moore who after making a number of points when questioned by TBNT attorney Steve Hinchman essentially agreed that the Coast Guard’s opinion was the same as Good Harbor’s, that there are too many unanswered questions, the channel needs to be dredged and there are no marine fire tugs that can respond to an emergency.
David Gelinas of the Penobscot Bay Pilots
David Gelinas of the Penobscot Bay Pilots got into the record his statements that some of these ships coming to Searsport would not be carrying full load, either making another stop first before Searsport or coming in without a full cargo. His exercise appeared pointless as pointed out by David Italiaander, there currently are no ships delivering either LPG or LNG coming to the U.S.
Searsport Planning Board:
Some members of the planning board did ask questions. One being what is a “most likely scenario”. The response from the Good Harbor team was a combination of a human error, either someone making a mistake not paying attention to the task at hand, a motor vehicle accident, a piece of machinery that breaks down or a combination of both.
DCP cross examines
The cross examination by DCP’s attorney was, as we have seen before, ineffective. DCP presented a blast analysis, commissioned by Baker Engineering (the Good Harbor subcontractor) in July, 2012 without any support documentation. This was a confounding moment, as suddenly this map appeared on the screen. We will investigate fully and report on this.
Bud Rivers Searsport Safety Chief
Almon Rivers, the safety chief of Searsport took an adversarial position while questioning Good Harbor. His tone left this resident of Searsport with grave concerns if he really has the safety and well-being of Searsport as his primary concern, or if his allegiance is toward proving at any cost that the 22.7 Gallon mega-tank DCP Midstream proposes can be built and operated safely.
GOOD HARBOR REPORT: LPG should stay out of Searsport Harbor
Richard A. Clarke was unable to travel to the Searsport hearing last night.
The presentation was done by Frank Gallagher and Mike Lucy, co-authors of the All Hazard Risk Assessment for Searsport. Their message that the Board should deny the project, was heard loud and clear by everyone in attendance:
 |
| Frank Gallagher, Good Harbor, presenting. |
Mack Point site too small: T-he site is too small to be safe (and there is no way to make it bigger); the facility is too close to residences, businesses, and Route 1; the community lacks the necessary emergency response capabilities; and the Searsport channel is not deep enough. They went further to discuss how a detailed analysis of plans should not be left after the permit is granted. At that point, as Lucy paraphrased Clarke, “the train has left the station” and can’t be turned back—that is to say too many crucial questions are still unanswered but the project is underway.
Current LPG markets They also brought to the board’s attention the current markets with LPG imports and exports. Another key point they made is this facility would be denied for an LNG permit by the federal government’s standards and essentially LPG and LNG act in much the same way as flammable materials. As Frank Gallagher put it, the difference is between burning yourself with fire from a match or burning yourself on a hot stove, the result is the same. The big picture question still remains: why would Searsport ever want this facility—knowing the inherent risks involved??
U.S. Coast Guard Captain Moore
 |
| USCG Capt Moore |
David Gelinas of the Penobscot Bay Pilots
David Gelinas of the Penobscot Bay Pilots got into the record his statements that some of these ships coming to Searsport would not be carrying full load, either making another stop first before Searsport or coming in without a full cargo. His exercise appeared pointless as pointed out by David Italiaander, there currently are no ships delivering either LPG or LNG coming to the U.S.
Searsport Planning Board:
Some members of the planning board did ask questions. One being what is a “most likely scenario”. The response from the Good Harbor team was a combination of a human error, either someone making a mistake not paying attention to the task at hand, a motor vehicle accident, a piece of machinery that breaks down or a combination of both.
DCP cross examines
The cross examination by DCP’s attorney was, as we have seen before, ineffective. DCP presented a blast analysis, commissioned by Baker Engineering (the Good Harbor subcontractor) in July, 2012 without any support documentation. This was a confounding moment, as suddenly this map appeared on the screen. We will investigate fully and report on this.
Bud Rivers Searsport Safety Chief
Almon Rivers, the safety chief of Searsport took an adversarial position while questioning Good Harbor. His tone left this resident of Searsport with grave concerns if he really has the safety and well-being of Searsport as his primary concern, or if his allegiance is toward proving at any cost that the 22.7 Gallon mega-tank DCP Midstream proposes can be built and operated safely.
Jan 18, 2013
Searsport vs DCP. Round 2 of public hearing begins.
Following wednesday's storm-blocked event, The public hearing on the DCP Midstream gigtank plan for upper Penobscot Bay went forward on Thursday.
The People spoke. The People presented. The Planning Board questioned and discussed. The New York Times was in attendance tonight, complete with photographer The two were given much juicy background info, internet links and, naming names. Bangor Daily News put a story out about the hearing.
One important event was Searsport resident Dave Italiaander's presentation click here (pdf) showing that the company must be misrepresenting itself to the people of Maine, because DCP exports LPG gas. It doesn't import it. According to Italiaander:
"LPG imports are virtually non-existent, except from Canada. There are no water borne imports.
"DCP told their investors that they are going to increase their LPG exports by 200 to 250 thousand barrels a day" Italiaander told the board.
"That is almost 8 million tons of additional exports a year, or 175 large, ocean--going LPG Tankers. Their proposed Searsport mega-tank would hold around 43,000 Metric tons; a large LPG tanker holds around 45,000MT. DCP needs 5 new terminals the size of this one just to handle their new exports"
Army Corps of Engineers washes hands of responsibility Italiaander said he spoke to the Army Corps of Engineers and to town officials about the project.
"Once this terminal is built" he told the board, "the Corps would have no jurisdiction nor review if the applicant wanted to export rather than import.
"Neither would the Town of Searsport. It seems that it would require no more than a notification to the DEP and Coast Guard."
"I hope that it is now clear," Italiaander told the Searsport Planning Board, "that it is a virtual impossibility that this is an import terminal and a virtual certainty that it is an export terminal."
This company exports propane, it does not import it."
UPDATES AS REPORTS COME IN
The People spoke. The People presented. The Planning Board questioned and discussed. The New York Times was in attendance tonight, complete with photographer The two were given much juicy background info, internet links and, naming names. Bangor Daily News put a story out about the hearing.
Residents of Cape Jellison/Stockton Springs gave presentations, as did realtors about declining sales and home values, Senior Citizens and their concerns, Friends of Sears Island and a loooooong discourse between Buddy Hall's appraiser and DCP's lawyers (Hall is owner of restaurant and motel abutting DCP's proposed tank site)
"LPG imports are virtually non-existent, except from Canada. There are no water borne imports.
"LPG and Propane prices
are falling.
"Propane prices are near a 10 year low.
"That is almost 8 million tons of additional exports a year, or 175 large, ocean--going LPG Tankers. Their proposed Searsport mega-tank would hold around 43,000 Metric tons; a large LPG tanker holds around 45,000MT. DCP needs 5 new terminals the size of this one just to handle their new exports"
"Once this terminal is built" he told the board, "the Corps would have no jurisdiction nor review if the applicant wanted to export rather than import.
"Neither would the Town of Searsport. It seems that it would require no more than a notification to the DEP and Coast Guard."
"I hope that it is now clear," Italiaander told the Searsport Planning Board, "that it is a virtual impossibility that this is an import terminal and a virtual certainty that it is an export terminal."
This company exports propane, it does not import it."
UPDATES AS REPORTS COME IN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)