ROCKLAND, Maine — Emotions ran high Monday night as city councilors debated whether to intervene in the proposal to erect an 138-foot liquefied propane storage tank in Searsport.
Councilors last week had expressed support for sending a letter of concern to the Searsport Planning Board but on Monday night, councilors approved a different resolve that expressed support for the greater use of propane to serve rural Maine.
Councilor Larry Pritchett said the city should not intervene in the proceedings of the Searsport Planning Board. He noted Searsport residents rejected a moratorium on the storage tank complex during their March town meeting, when more than 500 people attended and rejected the moratorium 2-to-1.
Pritchett also challenged statements by some of the opponents to the liquefied propane gas terminal. He questioned how the height of the proposed 138-foot tank in Searsport would harm tourism when Dragon Products has a silo more than 300 feet tall and it does not harm the local tourism industry.
He said the entire project is one-third the size of FMC Corp.’s waterfront facility.
Pritchett also noted that while there may be more propane and natural gas tankers on the road, there are fewer heating oil trucks on the road.
Rockland Fire Chief Charles Jordan Jr. said Rockland could respond to a problem at the Searsport facility with personnel who are trained in hazardous material responses. He said he is not aware of a serious problem at such a facility in 30 years.
“I’m the guy that brought you residential sprinklers and asked for a prohibition on fireworks. If there was a potential problem, I would tell you,” Jordan said.
Pritchett offered a substitute letter which asks for the city to have a role in planning regulations for propane tankers on Penobscot Bay. The letter would be sent to the U.S. Coast Guard requesting that a Rockland representative be included in the stakeholder group developing the Bay Transit Management Plan for the proposed DCP project in Searsport. A copy of the letter also would be sent to the Searsport Planning Board.
Councilor Elizabeth Dickerson said she was angry that Pritchett replaced her resolve to send a letter of concern with a letter that would be opposite from the original intent.
Councilor William Clayton later asked his fellow councilors to tone it down, saying that some of the behavior was “pathetic.”
Dickerson interjected, “Are you calling me pathetic?”
Clayton said no but there was some sighing and eye rolling when Pritchett unveiled his revised resolve.
Larry Miller of Islesboro told councilors before their vote that the main concern was the size of the project and the danger of the material that would be brought into the bay and along the highway.
Councilors voted 4-1 with Dickerson opposed to send the letter drafted by Pritchett.
Miller had no comment on the vote after the meeting.
In other action Monday night, councilors voted unanimously to give preliminary support to an ordinance banning toll booth fundraisers on city streets. The council also gave initial approval to requiring a permit for future toll booth fundraisers off the street. Formal public hearings and final votes are scheduled for Aug. 13.
What?! Rockland shouldn’t butt into Searsport’s business?! I was waiting to see what Allagash thought of the tank in Searsport!!!
Rockland has every right to butt in Searsport’s business when their proposal has a direct impact on Rockland’s roads and especially Penobscot Bay. And, if I had my way, Dragon would be gone, too! They are the area’s biggest polluter using their incinerators to burn hazardous waste.
Thank you Rockland!!!!! We need more sanity and less hysteria as our Planning Board considers a legitimate application from a company with an excellent safety record and the ability to bring some employment and commerce to coastal Maine. As to Rockland “butting in” why is it OK if you oppose DCP to make statements- but not OK if you support our Planning Boards efforts?
Every one is entitled to an opinion!
The Council needs to get along. It make the city looks bad. If you cant play nice take your toys and go home.
First, the Searsport moratorium was “rejected” after DCP spent thousands of dollars promoting themselves and arguable benefits to the town. They persuaded many that the few high-paying jobs the project would create after construction would go to Seasrsport rsidents–which is unlikely.
The moratorium itself called for more study on the DCP application, partlcularly safety and impact of the project on the economics of the tow. It was not a referendum on the DCP proposal itself.
The Rockland Dragon plant is well inland from the Penobscot Bay view shed. There are also alternatives routes to avoid the industrial side of Rockland–scenic ones, including by boat, with no impact from Dragon. The proposed LPG tank has no alternate route for travelers on coastal Route 1 and would devastate the view shed of Penobscot Bay.
The safety issues have not been addressed publicly in any serious way at all by DCP or the agencies issuing permits. This raised the most concern ab0ut the tank proposal to residents of Midcoast Maine and the Islands. We were apparently just supposed to just go along with what this gigantic fossil fuel company secretly decided with no public hearings prior to EPA & ACOE permitting.
Most rational people are calling for domestic fuel consumption, not foreign imports. And renewable domestic energy resources make more sense if you care one whit about our environment.
Everyone should take the time to read the proposed moratorium that was voted down so soundly. The real purpose of the proposal was not just to buy time as some keep saying- BUT- to usurp the power of our elected officials and put the control of our town in the hands of a few named and self appointed individuals. We do not support our democratic form of government with such power grabbing by a few radicals who choose to rule with hysteria and lies.
That was not the purpose of the moratorium.
Are you saying you can’t see Dragon from the ocean? When I am sitting on the island transporter in my truck you can see Dragon’s Tower almost from Matinicus.
I stand corrected. I should have written that you cannot see the bulk of the Dragon plant from the Bay. Unlike the proposed DCP tank–gleaming, reflective white — the coastal forest clear-cut.
I’m sure many will disagree but
I think this is a good move on Rockland’s part.
The Rockland City Council still needs to vote on a letter to Searsport about the DCP application. See statute below
The letter brought forward by Councilor Pritchett was a completely separate letter to the US Coast Guard, a federal agency. It was not a revised form of the draft letter to the town of Searsport, a municipality. While the letter to the Coasties is a necessary one about taking part in joint planning on gas tanker routing on the bay, it has nothing to do with the the draft letter submitted to Searsport
A solution may be for Rockland to send a letter to Searsport asking it to supply the following information pursuant to statute: MRSA §37-B 783. Disaster emergency plan Each municipality, county and regional emergency management agency shall prepare and keep a current disaster emergency plan for the area subject to its jurisdiction. That plan must include, without limitation: 1. Identification of disasters. Identification of disasters to which the jurisdiction is or may be vulnerable, specifically indicating the areas most likely to be affected; 2. Action to minimize damage. Identification of the procedures and operations which will be necessary to prevent or minimize injury and damage in the event those disasters occur; 3. Personnel, equipment and supplies. Identification of the personnel, equipment and supplies required to implement those procedures and operations and the means by which their timely availability will be assured;4. Recommendations. Recommendations to appropriate public and private agencies of all preventive measures found reasonable in light of risk and cost;5. Other. Other elements required by agency rule.Each municipal, county and regional emergency management agency, as part of the development of a disaster emergency plan for the area subject to its jurisdiction, shall consult with hospitals within its jurisdiction to ensure that the disaster plans developed by the municipality or agency and the hospitals are compatible. – End of statute excerpts-In short, Rockland still needs to join the other coastal towns in asking Searsport to engage in joint planning of likely financial and training scenarios to adapt to introduction of the new carbon importer wannabee. Searsport as the proposed Host town is required to carry out joint planning to come up with answers on what the financial & training demands would come from a commitment to a new level emergency response preparedness.
crawl back under your rock…