Why we need to be concerned about safety and security
Having a sense of safety and security is one of the
most basic of all human needs, second only to the physical needs of food,
water and protection from the elements. Those who have experienced a loss
of safety and security, especially over a prolonged period, clearly
comprehend how greatly one’s quality of life is diminished. Yet, this
proposal has us tinkering with this very essential element. Even if some
do not feel at risk because of the distance they may live from the site
location or for any other reason, we need to remain cognizant of the
impact that is felt by those that do live in close proximity. We need to
acknowledge that the presence of this facility will deny them, at least in
part, an essential human need. And, we need to understand that only those
who are impacted can really determine the degree to which they will be
denied. If for no other reason than respect for the primary needs of
others, we need to move very carefully in this regard.
Understanding the sacrifice we are asking others to make
Close adherence to federal regulations and industry
standards have, to date, resulted in a safety record that, for some,
justifies the conclusion that we would not experience an accidental
catastrophic event. Because risk tolerance is a personal and subjective
type of thing, review of these same records, including the recent disaster
in Algeria, might give others greater cause for concern. Even the Federal
government is now beginning to revisit all of the evidence that is
available. However, regardless of what the risk really is, there are
several industries that have equal or better safety records, yet they are
not considered “neighborhood friendly.” Most of us would know
instinctively that we would not want to be living next to these types of
activities. We know, although they might be operated safely, that does
not necessarily make them an appropriate activity for our community.
Similarly, regardless of what arguments are put before us, very few would
choose to move next door to a LNG tank. Yet, that is precisely the
position in which we may be placing good number of our citizens.
Instead of enjoying neighborhoods like the rest of us do, the folks in the
vicinity of this project will wake up every day next to a large-scale
industrial facility that may have a considerable amount of risk associated
with it. If that is not acceptable for our families, or ourselves, then
how can we justify imposing it on our neighbors? It is hard to believe
that our own self-interests may have become so preeminent. In the past,
our national security interests required some of our neighbors to carry
the burden of the fuel farm, that came and went in one half the
life span of a single generation. That should not mean they
have forfeited future rights that the rest of us enjoy. They have the
right to expect the same sense of safety and security that we all do.
The Threat of Terrorism -- Fact or Fiction
Terrorism must be considered a primary player in the
issue of safety and security. I have heard this concern raised on several
occasions when it was unfortunately dealt with it in a less than helpful
fashion. Taking the cavalier approach that we can't live our lives hiding
in bunkers, that we need to weigh the probability of an incident against
the possible good that can be gained, or that we should just live our
lives and not worry about what might happen, is the type of complacent
approach our enemies would like us to take, and can well lead to a
disaster of severe proportions. In view of the information that is
available to the general public, apathy regarding a terrorist attack in a
place like Harpswell is perhaps understandable. The problem is that
what we don't know, in fact, can hurt us. Anyone that has really
studied these people and their activities is invariably left with the
certain knowledge that there are a lot of very bad people, at home and
abroad, that spend their lives planning ways to hurt this country. If the
situation is right, they have the ability, will, and support to accomplish
their goals. These people and their activities do not necessarily get
covered by CNN, but that does not mean that they are not out there.
Whether they are planning a spectacular event such as 9/11 to gain global
recognition or narrowing their focus on the heartland of our country to
create a climate of fear in even our most secure
towns and villages, there is no limit to the atrocities they are willing
to commit. After a high level war game, designed to study vulnerability
of infrastructure facilities in the energy and chemical industries, John
Hamre, former Deputy Secretary of Defense and currently Director for the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, stated, “Nuclear power
plants remain the best defended parts of the infrastructure, while LNG
facilities and chemical storage sites remain a problem.” I know John
Hamre personally. He is as well informed and objective as almost anyone I
know. Appointed to his Defense Department position during the previous
administration, Mr. Hamre is anything but a war hawk or spokesman for the
current administration. Hearing his position on this issue, both that it
is recognized as a potential target and that it is even more vulnerable
than nuclear power plants, only deepens my conviction that we may be about
to move ourselves into harm's way. It should be noted that this war game
included a large number of distinguished experts in the field, including
James Woolsley, former Director of the CIA. Today the odds may be pretty
small that Harpswell might make a terrorist's target list. Build an LNG
facility in our town and the odds change dramatically. We place ourselves
in a position of potentially being identified as a high value target and
making a quantum move up the target priorities list. How far up the list
we might move cannot be predicted, but it is not a move we should
make so lightly as some would have us do. We should not forget that, if
we do vote to put ourselves in the cross hairs of these people, we will
not get to vote on whether or not they pull the trigger.
An Incident in Harpswell -- Feasibility and Rationale
Some would have us believe that LNG does not really
represent that great of a hazard and that the storage tanks are virtually
indestructible. As regards the dangerous nature of LNG we have heard the
statements from a company that stands to make millions if not billions of
dollars from this project. On the other hand, we have seen the opposing
comments from an MIT professor whose professional reputation is at stake,
as well as the findings of a former engineer with Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory regarding a similar analysis. Even the authors of the
Quest Consultants report, that is often cited by industry representatives
to support safety claims, state that their report is being misused. And
now, an industry sponsored report, that is beginning to see the light of
day, clearly recognizes the possibility of catastrophic events on a scale
much greater than previously acknowledged. As with most things, the truth
probably lies somewhere in the middle. What we do know is that we do not
require these extraordinary security measures: armed guards, security
fences, alarms, lighting, exclusion zones, and Coast Guard escorts, to
ship and store less dangerous products. Given the part of the world that
these terrorists come from, we can expect that they would be very familiar
with ways to breech pipes, disable mechanical safety systems, and cause a
deliberate major release of gas. Couple those skills with their
demonstrated ability to use improvised explosive ignition devices at the
right time and place, and we might suddenly find ourselves one small step
away from the unthinkable. The fixed nature of the facility, the fact
that it is not a hardened site and the terrain all favor an attacker.
This is not an exceptionally difficult attack to plan for, train for, or
execute. (I say that based on nearly 30 years experience analyzing,
planning, training for, and conducting military operations in both
academic/field training and contingency environments.) If total
destruction is possible by accident, and we have now seen that it is, then
deliberate sabotage must be considered equally devastating. And, such
possibilities are an unfortunate reality of the world we live in, even if
it is difficult for us to accept it. Some folks like to point to
potentially more dramatic possibilities than Harpswell as the likely
direction they will take. Such suppositions presume an unrealistic
insight into the terrorist mentality and reflect a somewhat superficial
consideration of the options. One only needs to look at our recent state
of Orange Alert and the fact that our officials were pointing to possible
interest in remote sites, as well as the more populated areas. In simple
language, the biggest lobster does not always taste the best. Whether
they chose what seems to some a more lucrative target, such as
Boston, or several smaller more vulnerable sites,
such an attack is in keeping with the terrorists’ pattern of asymmetrical
warfare matching their strengths against our weaknesses. Certainly it
would be a horrific event for the Town, send shock waves across the
Country, and likely damage the industry. More importantly though, to the
terrorists, would be the extent of the general economic losses generated
nationwide. It is the economic losses, as Senator Collins noted
recently, not the number of people injured that are the real objective.
And, that is the harsh, but undeniable, reality of why such an attack
appeals to terrorists, and why it cannot be so readily dismissed by us as
insignificant.
Probability -- What we know and what we don’t know
There are those who accept the possibility of such an
event, but contend vehemently that the probability is practically nil for
any number of reasons and, therefore, should not be part of the decision
process. Professional operational analysts, that have the training,
experience, and required information access, use a methodical
Threat-Vulnerability Integration Process, to evaluate possible enemy
courses of action. They employ a variety of technical experts from
different fields to weigh the pros and cons of each course. If an event
is thought to be imminent, or if they have hard intelligence, they might
attempt to rate the options from most likely to least likely. Generally
speaking though, the professionals that do this type of thing realize that
any analysis of terrorist activity 5 years into the future can only be
done at a very broad level. Their focus would be on the
possibility/probability of attacks inside or outside of our borders;
chemicals, biological agents, or dirty bombs; infrastructure, food sources
or populations. No experienced professional I have ever known would
pretend to know the priority of a specific target or target set in the
year 2008 and beyond or contend that we have nothing to worry about by
building this in a family neighborhood. They know that reality is
just not that easy. Professionals would be asking if such an attack could
provide results supportive of the terrorists overall objectives, could
such an attack be conducted with a reasonable amount of resources, and
would such an attack have a high probability of success? Knowing that the
answer to these questions is likely yes, they would then ask, “How do we
mitigate the fallout of such an event?” Clearly the answer to that
question does not include putting the facility in the middle of a
residential community. Alternatives such as
El Paso Energy’s plans for an off-shore submersible
receiving pipeline in lieu of a shore based storage facility reflect a
clearer recognition of the problem and an attempt to find a more
enlightened approach to this delimma.
Choosing the right course -- Listen to the experts
Given the seriousness of this issue we would be wise
to heed the words of the professionals and not let ourselves be lulled
into a sense of complacency by the wishful thinking and assertions,
however well-intentioned, of those who are perhaps less qualified to make
such statements. And what are the professionals saying? On Friday,
November 21, 2003, the FBI and Department of Homeland Defense issued a
joint terrorist warning to law enforcement agencies, public officials and
private security personnel, that said in part, “The Department of Homeland
Security remains concerned about Al-Qaida’s continued
interest in aviation including using cargo jets to carry out attacks on
critical infrastructure as well as targeting liquid natural gas,
chemical, and other hazardous materials facilities.” Regardless of
how many other better options we may think they have, it is extremely
ill-advised to underestimate the extent they will go to accomplish their
objectives and, at best, irresponsible for us to make our decision based
on the false assumption that it would never happen here. We need to
remember that, any argument based in whole or in part upon a false
assumption is itself a flawed argument. If we are to be truly honest with
ourselves and with each other then we cannot ignore that fact. Our
denials will not make this threat go away. Avoiding becoming a target in
the first place, however, may well be the most prudent protective measure
we can take. Some may interpret this as running away from the enemy. I
think it is more accurately interpreted as not running into the enemy.
Are we violating our own principles
Our Town building codes are based, in part, on the
fundamental principle of safety. Whether one agrees with the specifics of
the codes or not, that critical principle upon which they are determined
is in fact a sound one. We have all listened and watched members of the
Planning Committee struggle with ways to maintain the overall sense of
safety and security that we enjoy in this Town while at the same time
dealing with changes that can be good for us. It would be unfortunate for
the Committee and the Town to lose that struggle. Even the proposed TIF
agreement refers to the “betterment of the health, welfare and safety of
the inhabitants of the Town.” This project will not improve or maintain
our current level of safety. To the contrary, it would have an undeniable
detrimental effect on it.
The Selectmen -- A critical role to play
Finally, our Selectmen are this Town's elected
leaders. It is their unenviable duty to help us get through the daily
process of town governance. And, it is their responsibility to consider
opportunities for bettering the Town. But, it is also their solemn
obligation to protect and preserve the security, safety, well being and
welfare of every citizen they are elected to serve. That obligation may
be difficult to uphold at times, because it may require leaders to
temporarily subordinate their own personal objectives or visions to avoid
jeopardizing their ability to meet this sacrosanct obligation. I would
contend that this proposal represents just such an occasion. Adherence to
this principle is being demonstrated daily elsewhere around the Country
and we should expect nothing less in our own Town. If they chose to make
a recommendation, many in the Town will look to them for guidance. Each
of them will have but one vote. Yet, their decision will have a far
greater impact on the Town than even they are likely to be comfortable
with. By the decision date, they will have weighed all of the complex
pros and cons. The question though, that they face, as do we all, is
basically clear cut. How much are we willing to sacrifice for the
gains that are envisioned, and how great a disproportionate share of the
burden can we justify placing on the shoulders of others? Great
leaders are not measured by the numbers of people that follow them. That
is what shepherds do with sheep. Great leaders are measured by their
courage, compassion, wisdom and judgment. Their decisions will be the
first steps down what may be an irreversible path.
A Recommendation
I would recommend that we all, including the
Selectmen, use our courage to resist the promise of excess
municipal fiscal well-being that places an undue portion of the related
burden on a minority of our neighbors; use compassion to place
ourselves in the shoes, in the homes, and at the dinner tables of those
who would be most adversely affected; use our wisdom to select a
responsible course that balances adversity and benefit equally for
every citizen, rather than a callous “in extremes” course that
possibly offers more good for more people; and use our good judgment
to act accordingly. Once again, we are dealing with an elemental
human need and we must weigh that most essential need against material
desires. This town stands at the edge of a very deep abyss. I hope
we choose wisely and step away from that edge. |