‘Our community says no’: Speakers decry LNG plant proposal on the Delaware River in Southeastern Pennsylvania

Speakers at a hearing on Wednesday warned of lasting environmental and health harms that would come with siting a liquefied natural gas plant in Chester, Pa., or other nearby densely populated communities in southeastern Delaware County.

The hearing, organized by Democrats on Pennsylvania’s House Environmental and Natural Resource Protection Committee, was in response to a plan that has been years in the making to build an LNG export terminal in Chester or nearby locations on the Delaware River.

Though few details of the proposal, which has been floated by Penn America, have emerged publicly, the majority chairman of the committee, Representative Greg Vitali, said he considered the project an “active issue, not a passive issue.”

“The fear is that this proposal will proceed under the radar without sufficient public scrutiny, without considering first and foremost the health and safety of residents,” he said.

It was not even two years ago that residents were celebrating a Biden administration announcement that it was pausing any decisions regarding permit approvals of new LNG exports. Opponents of the plant called it a “knockout punch.”

However, the project has been quietly simmering along, Vitali said, citing behind-the-scenes work, such as a meeting the developers had at the White House in June.

Add insult to injury

Chester, a city of 34,000 people, is home to the country’s largest trash incinerator and a jet-fuel refinery that heavily pollute the air, contribute to above-normal harmful health effects and compound quality of life problems in what is an environmental justice community, speakers testified.

To site an LNG plant, with its emissions and safety concerns, would be to add insult to injury, residents said.

Zulene Mayfield, the founder of Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living, a community activist group, called it “another dangerous and polluting proposal” and said she was actually “shocked” that Chester would be considered.

“The jobs are temporary but death is forever.”

Zulene Mayfield, the founder of Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living

“How many times do we have to say no?” said Mayfield, who described herself as seething with rage. “Our children don’t have a movie theater. There is no skate park. There is no entertainment. But consistently we are being told that we have to accept other industries that no other community wants as undesirable. Our community says no.”

She tearfully described the death of local man in his 30s, who died of a rare form of cancer that she attributed to exposure to high levels of pollution. She said no economic benefits from an LNG plant are worth the loss of human life.

“The jobs are temporary but death is forever,” she said.

Franc James, the chairman and chief executive of the company behind the project did not respond to an email request for comment on Wednesday.

Echo of previous hearing

The mayor of Chester, Stefan Roots, said it would be “negligent and irresponsible” to locate an LNG facility especially at a time that the city is looking to develop new housing and, with its sports facilities, become more of an attraction for visitors.

Outside prospectors are trying to lure poor, struggling residents into a believing an LNG plant will be beneficial, he said.

“We’ve moved on,” he said. “Go away. We’re not entertaining another deal that endangers the health and safety of the residents of Chester.”

He added that he was disappointed that the city was having this discussion again. Indeed, in many ways, the hearing was a replay of one in August 2023 that focused on energy independence.

That hearing, hosted by the Pennsylvania LNG Task Force, was, on paper, supposed to explore the virtues of exporting LNG from Delaware River ports in southeastern Pennsylvania. Instead, it turned into a rallying cry against the plant plan and gave rise to a boisterous clash of causes: environmental justice, economic development and public health and safety.

“We were promised opportunity but what we got is sacrifice,” he said, adding that LNG stood for “Lies and Greed.”

James Hiatt, a former refinery worker and the founder of For a Better Bayou in Louisiana

Short-term benefits but long-term consequences

At the hearing on Wednesday, two speakers, Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, and Tracy Carluccio, the deputy director at the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, spoke of LNG’s long-term harmful consequences on the environment.

LNG comes almost exclusively from fracked natural gas and the increase in shale gas production has been responsible for at least a one-third increase globally in methane, which is a huge driver of climate change, Howarth said.

Carluccio called the fracked natural gas the “cradle” in the cradle-to-grave journey of the gas. She noted that Pennsylvania is the second-greatest producer of natural gas after Texas.

But the byproducts of fracking are many, such as wastewater polluted with cancer-causing and toxic substances, she said.

Further, she said, there are safety considerations in siting an LNG plant. A leak could create a ground-hugging vapor cloud that could move expansively and explode like a powerful bomb. In the event of leak, how would emergency responders be able to evacuate a one-mile radius in such a densely populated area, she asked.

James Hiatt, a former refinery worker and the founder of For a Better Bayou in Louisiana, traveled to Chester to testify in person about what it’s like to live near LNG plants. He noted that at least four were operational in the state and others were under construction or in the planning stages.

He said the plants were “sold as engines of prosperity” but destroyed wetlands and harmed human health. “We were promised opportunity but what we got is sacrifice,” he said, adding that LNG stood for “Lies and Greed.”

“The benefits are short-lived but the long-term effects are consequential,” he said.