Pipeline Politics

Published Fall, 2002 in North Shore Sunday.

August 19, 2003.  An explosion in a high-capacity natural gas transmission pipeline killed twelve North Shore residents in their homes today. The homes were 200 to 300 yards from the blast.

Witnesses say the victims were "consumed by a huge ball of fire" and had no chance to escape. The fireball was so hot that concrete foundations turned to powder, and sand in a child’s sandbox turned to glass.

If you think that such a horrific accident can’t possibly happen with the natural gas pipeline that Maritimes and Northeast is currently building through nine North Shore communities, think again. The accounts above are based on an actual transmission pipeline explosion in a remote area of New Mexico on 8/19/00.  All twelve people camping 200 to 300 yards from the blast were killed.

Transmission pipeline accidents don’t happen every day, but they do happen.  And if there is a Maritimes pipeline accident in the populous North Shore, the casualty count is likely to be much higher than 12.  This pipeline is being built through and next to neighborhoods, busy roadways, and shopping mall parking lots.  An accident might take dozens if not hundreds of lives.

Putting a 25-mile-long time bomb in a populous area is irresponsible if an alternative exists. And it does. But many in a position to do something about it chose not to. For example:

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  FERC is responsible for approving the pipeline route.

Four towns hired an engineering consultant to find an ocean alternative to Maritimes’ onshore route. But FERC rejected the safer ocean alternative. Why?

In Volume II of its Final Environmental Impact Statement, FERC states that its opposition to the ocean alternatives “is based simply on the length of the alternatives.” 

So, to avoid the extra 21 miles of ocean-floor trench, as would be required by the consultant’s ocean alternative, FERC found it preferable to cut a 50-foot-wide, permanent right-of-way through 25 miles of private and public property consisting of neighborhoods, woods, wetlands, and commercial areas—and to put the lives of residents within several hundred yards of the route at permanent risk.

The Attorney General. In a worst-case pipeline accident, how far from the point of the gas release could a person be killed or property damaged?  In other words, what is the “danger zone” of a transmission pipeline accident? 

Judging from accounts of other accidents, it could be 1,000 feet or more.  But we don’t know for sure because Maritimes won’t tell us — even though it apparently is required by law to do so.

Federal law requires that pipeline companies “carry out a program to educate the public on …the possible hazards associated with gas leaks.” But Maritimes refuses to answer questions about the distance from the pipe that could be affected by an accident, or the area that would need to be evacuated.

Maritimes’ refusal to disclose this information seems to have worked in its favor. If residents aren’t aware that they are in danger from this pipeline, they aren’t likely to protest the pipeline to FERC, or to ask elected representatives for help.

On 8/1/02, I sent a letter to Atty. General Reilly about this legal issue, but have had no response. 

Even if Maritimes isn’t legally obligated to define the danger zone (it would seem that they are),  it surely is morally obligated to do so. The weight of the Atty. General’s office may well have convinced Maritimes to live up to its obligations.

Federal representatives. Our federal representatives offered no help in siting this potentially dangerous pipeline offshore and safely away from the residents who elected them. None.

On the state level, I am grateful to Rep. Hill, Rep. Jones, and Sen. Tarr for their help.

The media. The media has shied away from reporting the safety risks.  For example, the Boston Globe has published articles about the pipeline in recent months.  Nowhere do they inform readers that a pipeline explosion can kill people and destroy property hundreds of yards away.  Nowhere do they mention that Maritimes has refused to state the pipeline danger zone. Nor will they bother to explain why they are withholding this important information from readers.