PROVIDENCE In a letter to the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) wrote FERCs approval process for LNG terminals is deeply flawed and leaves too many questions unanswered.Reed stated, My colleagues and I have tried hard to work with FERC to identify safer ways to deliver LNG to our region, because we recognize that natural gas is an important and growing component of New Englands energy supply. Unfortunately, at every turn, FERC has rejected our efforts.On Monday Reed announced that he would introduce legislation to amend the Natural Gas Act to give states more authority in the LNG process to approve the placement of LNGS terminals. Under the bill, FERC would have no authority to preempt state permitting decisions or determinations made according to other federal laws, such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.Reed also plans to introduce legislation to establish thermal radiation exclusion zones and vapor dispersion zones around ships carrying LNG. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energys Sandia National Laboratories found that an attack on an LNG tanker could produce a fire so hot it would cause second degree burns and damage buildings a mile away. While thermal radiation and vapor exclusion zones exist for LNG terminals, they have not been established for LNG tankers. Vessels serving the proposed KeySpan and Weavers Cove LNG terminals would pass by twelve Rhode Island towns and cities and about 30 miles of populated coastline.Following is the text of Senator Reeds letter to the Patrick Wood, the Chairman of FERC:I write to urge you to reject proposals by KeySpan and Weavers Cove Energy to establish liquefied natural gas (LNG) marine terminals in Providence, Rhode Island and Fall River, Massachusetts, respectively. While I recognize that natural gas is an important and growing component of New Englands energy supply, I am extremely concerned about the safety and security risks associated with siting LNG marine terminals in urban communities and requiring LNG tankers to pass by eleven Rhode Island towns and cities and more than 25 miles of densely populated coastline. I and my colleagues in the Rhode Island delegation have attempted to work with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to identify safer ways to deliver LNG to our region. Unfortunately, at every turn, FERC has rejected our efforts. The Commission refused to consider a regional approach to LNG terminal siting, one that would step back and take a comprehensive look at all the options, including offshore terminals, remote facilities that are being built in Canada, and other sites in the northeastern United States that are not in the heart of densely populated urban communities. Not only did FERC reject these considerations, the Commission even denied our request to extend the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the KeySpan project, even though KeySpan did not object to the extension. Indeed, the 600-page document came out over the holidays, and the comment period closed on the day of a record-breaking snowstorm in New England.FERCs approval process for LNG terminals is deeply flawed and leaves too many questions unanswered. We do not know exactly what impact the arrival and departure of 100 or more LNG tankers each year will have on recreational and commercial traffic on the Bay -- or whether any of our bridges will need to be closed during transits -- because the Coast Guard has not completed its safety and security reviews. I understand that the Coast Guard is working with KeySpan and with its state and local partners to complete those reviews, and I commend all the participants in the working groups for these ongoing efforts, but the Coast Guard has told my office repeatedly that it does not have the resources to adequately secure these LNG tankers and marine terminals while fulfilling its other post-911 responsibilities. This will require a whole new level of personnel and infrastructure, yet we have no cost estimate and no guarantee these new federal resources will be made available. Similarly, a tremendous new burden will be placed on our state and local law enforcement and first responder agencies. I recognize KeySpans commitment in its recent filing before FERC to develop a mechanism to provide recovery of direct transit-related costs faced by federal, state and local agencies on a per-transit basis. I disagree with KeySpans assumption, however, that other sources of funding will cover the bulk of additional costs associated with the security of the proposed KeySpan terminal. As stated above, the availability of new Coast Guard resources is very uncertain, particularly in the current federal budget climate. In addition, the federal grant programs KeySpan offers to help state and local agencies pursue are all facing dwindling resources, and at least one mentioned in the companys filing, the Urban Area Security Initiative, is not available to Rhode Island. With all of these questions still unanswered, the publics opportunity to comment has now formally ended. FERCs legislative affairs office has informed my office that the Commissions staff is likely to go to print on the KeySpan Final EIS sometime after February 15th, in all likelihood prior to the completion of the Coast Guards safety and security reviews. There is no justification for the KeySpan FEIS or the Weavers Cove FEIS to proceed without incorporating the critical resource requirements that the Coast Guard will forward to FERC after completing both its waterways safety assessments and security workshops, not to mention the workshops for consequence management and emergency response planning that are just beginning in cooperation with the states of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. As the Army Corps of Engineers stated in its January 24th filing with FERC on the KeySpan project, It is essential that your FEIS fully evaluate the Coast Guard plan and discuss potential navigation impacts and economic consequences both at the facility and as ships maneuver through Narragansett Bay. I am also concerned about the underlying safety standards for LNG facilities and the KeySpan proposals compliance with those standards. The 1979 Pipeline Safety Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to consider the need for remote siting of LNG terminals, but the Departments safety regulations (49 CFR 193) fail to address this statutory requirement. Moreover, the National Fire Protection Association standards that DOT uses for LNG terminals (NFPA 59A) were written prior to September 11, 2001 and do not even mention a terrorist attack as one of the possible emergency scenarios. The DOT regulations and the NFPA standards do, however, require KeySpan and other LNG plant operators to have in place procedures that address an uncontrollable emergency and the possible need for evacuation of the public in the vicinity of the LNG plant. What specific steps have been taken by KeySpan to comply with 49 CFR 193.2509(3), which calls for coordinating with appropriate local officials in preparation of an emergency evacuation plan, which sets forth the steps required to protect the public in the event of an emergency, including catastrophic failure of an LNG storage tank? Will such a plan be addressed in the FEIS? I am particularly concerned that KeySpans facility, which has operated for 30 years under the grandfather provision of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, may be substantially modified to establish a marine terminal without bringing the plant up to current federal safety standards. Indeed, FERCs Draft EIS states that the current proceeding provides the opportunity to re-evaluate the existing facility and to raise the level of safety to that required for new LNG facilities. I am disappointed that KeySpans response to FERC argues that in virtually every area mentioned by the Commission, including Thermal Radiation Exclusion Zones, Vapor Dispersion Zones, Impoundment Capacity, Seismic Design Requirements, it would not be practically or economically feasible for KeySpan to comply with new construction standards. I want to emphasize that I appreciate the important role LNG plays in Rhode Islands energy infrastructure, and I look forward to continuing to look for alternative means to increase the supply of natural gas to our region. It is regrettable that the lingering questions about safety and security standards for LNG, as well as FERCs unwillingness to work with Rhode Islands congressional delegation on comprehensive, regional solutions to our natural gas supply challenges, have brought us to the point where I must oppose the proposed KeySpan and Weavers Cove LNG terminals. I look forward to working with you to explore other means, including offshore facilities, to bring more natural gas to our region while minimizing the risk to our citizens.