By Bill Forry

With the nation's terror alert high for the holidays, the spectre of an air or sea attack on the port of Boston has once again become an issue for city and state officials. This week, Dorchester state Rep. Martin J. Walsh, who chairs the Legislature's new Committee on Homeland Security, told the Reporter that he plans to call a hearing later this month to quiz state officials about lingering concerns about liquified natural gas (LNG) tankers in Boston Harbor, the only port in the Northeast that accepts regular deliveries from the mammoth vessels.

Walsh said he wants to press the Romney administration and the federal authorities to learn more about the security risk posed the tankers, which routinely enter the harbor to deliver large quantities of heating fuel to a large storage depot in Everett. Walsh said he also plans to ask for more details about the potential security risk to the KeySpan Energy storage tank on Dorchester Bay.

KeySpan officials have repeatedly said that the Dorchester tank, if attacked, would not pose a threat to nearby homes. Yet, the site has been under 24-hour police guard since Sept. 12, 2001 as a precaution against sabotage. Rep. Walsh said he wants to know more about the site's security risk- and who is paying for the constant police presence.

"I want to know why the city of Boston should have to pick up the tab on that, or when an LNG tanker comes into town," said Walsh. "There's been over two years now of around-the-clock detailing [on Victory Road]."

More pressing, however is widespread concern about whether a tanker vessel, carrying large quantities of fuel, could be a much more appealing target to terrorists. There are conflicting opinions about just how far-reaching the effects of a tanker explosion could be on surrounding neighborhoods.

Boston Fire Commissioner Paul Christian, who has spoken out previously against tankers entering the inner harbor, said this week that the company that coordinates the fuel shipments, Distrigas, has not satisfied his request for information about the hazards of their LNG tankers.

"There were a lot of questions that we've asked and we still do not feel we've been given an adequate response," said Christian. "We feel it's up to people who bring this product into the harbor to conduct a study that could withstand a peer review."

Meanwhile, the corollary discussion about how to pay for the expense of heightened security levels is also in play. Just this week, according to City Council President Michael Flaherty, the council received for its review a $1.1 million funding grant from the US Department of Homeland Security. It's the first concrete money that's been delivered to the city to help pay for terror-preparedness.

"All options need to be explored about how we can not expose any of our communities to the serious potential threat of an explosion or terrorism," Flaherty said this week. "Some have suggested that the tankers be off-loaded before they come into harbor, or be diverted altogether. They're big and scary if you think about it, but people need the heat too, especially this week."

Walsh said that the purpose of his hearing will be to flush out more answers to questions raised by Boston officials.

"I hope to work with Mayor Menino and get some of these questions answered," Walsh said. "Every single week we have a potential bomb of mass destruction going through the harbor. It's this committee's responsibility to find out more. We want to know what the national people are looking at for prevention."

Shortly after September 11, Keyspan officials appeared at a community meeting to re-assure neighbors that the Victory Road facility, if attacked, would not impact neighbors in Savin Hill, Pope's Hill or Clam Point.

According to the gas company, the liquified natural gas is too cold to ignite and it would not explode. A large dike which surrounds the tank would capture any fuel in the event of a rupture. The Dorchester tank is no longer filled via tanker, a practice that was discontinued in the 1970s, when a pipeline replaced the ship delivery method.

Experts Differ on Risks of a Tanker Incident

Associated Press

There is conflicting information about just how bad the fallout would be from an assault against a tanker in the harbor. One scenario outlined by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor James Fay, concludes that a boat bomb - like the one used against the USS Cole in 2000 - could cause at least half a cargo hold's worth of LNG to seep out of the ship and ignite. In just over three minutes, the fire could spread two-thirds of a mile from the ship, Fay said. Those in the LNG industry said Fay's scenario is unlikely and preventable.

The damage to the tanker that Fay bases his fire model on is far too large, said Frank Katulak, senior vice president of operations for Distrigas, the company that brings LNG through Boston Harbor.

The same quantity of explosives used on the Cole would do less damage to an LNG tanker, Katulak said, because they're built to be stronger than other ships.

Katulak said even if a fire did occur, Fay's scenario overestimates its likely impact. By throwing lots of water on an LNG fire within seconds, the firefighting tugboats that would accompany the tanker could reduce a fire's effects, he said.

After Sept. 11, the Coast Guard required Distrigas to conduct a study assessing the potential damage of an attack. The report, conducted by United Kingdom-based Lloyd's Register of Shipping, disagrees with Fay's disaster formula, challenging his estimation of ship damage and, therefore, the extent of the burn zone. It was used by the Coast Guard in approving a safety plan for the Everett site.

The Coast Guard requires Distrigas to have a Coast Guard and state-police escort as well as firefighting tugboats for each shipment. When LNG tankers pass below the Tobin Bridge in Boston, the bridge is closed to pedestrian and vehicle traffic for about 20 minutes.

Since 1959, LNG has been transported overseas more than 33,000 times, on voyages spanning more than 60 million miles. There have been no major accidents or safety problems, according to a University of Houston study funded by the industry.

The only LNG fatalities have occurred on land. The most serious occurred in a 1944 fire outside an LNG-storage facility in Cleveland. A total of 128 people in nearby residential areas were killed. LNG escaped from a faulty tank, forming a vapor cloud that filled surrounding streets and the sewer system before igniting.

New England has just one LNG import facility, in Everett, on Boston Harbor. It's one of only four in the United States that can receive LNG deliveries by ship. Three different energy companies now have plans to build new LNG delivery terminals in Providence, Fall River, Somerset, MA by 2007, but the projects are encountering heavy opposition.