Constructed as part of the Atlantic Bridge Project, the station connects existing pipeline systems, transporting gas from Pennsylvania and other eastern gas fields to Maine and Canada. This station's primary function is to increase pressure and make transporting gas over longer distances more efficient. One of the company’s justifications for the project was that it would provide gas for heating local homes; however, major utility companies in the area contest this, stating the station was not necessary to their operations [1][2].  

First proposed in 2015, the company conducted a number of assessments, acquired permits from various state and federal regulatory agencies, and selected the site after considering a number of alternatives [1][3].  

The location of the site has been the primary concern. The Weymouth station is positioned in the “most densely populated location ever [for a compressor] in a coastal area in the United States,” with about 3,200 people per square mile [1][4]. Within 1.5 miles of the site are a number of schools (3,000+ students), housing for the elderly, nursing homes, a mental health facility, and the Fore River Bridge (heavily trafficked by 30,000 commuters per day) [1][2]. The combined population of the two cities closest to the compressor site is approximately 150,000, many of whom are at risk for environmental and health concerns [24]. Additionally, two Environmental Justice state-designated communities are within close proximity to the site. Furthermore, these communities are already disproportionately impacted by pollution from other industrial activities in the area [1].  

Another major concern is the negative health impact on the surrounding community from methane and volatile organic compound emissions. The venting of these pollutants occurs during “blowdowns” (part of the normal functioning process to relieve pressure), through leaks, and most notably during unplanned releases (potentially affecting N. Weymouth, S. Quincy, Germantown, and other surrounding areas) [1]. In the year since the station has been operating, there have been four unplanned large releases of gas: September 11th, 2020 (169,000 cu ft), September 30th, 2020 (195,000 cu ft), April 6th, 2021 (11,430 cu ft), and May 20th, 2021 (11,000 cu ft) [1, 5, 2]. The company refused to take responsibility for the most recent release in May, declaring it out of their control as a "force majeure," or “an act of God.” The company then failed to conduct a root cause analysis or safety inspection of the compressor station [2]. 

From a global perspective, the compressor and pipeline it supports contribute to climate change both directly through methane leaks, and indirectly through CO2 emissions when natural gas is used by consumers. The extraction of this gas via fracking is problematic, presenting additional emission leaks and site pollution. Such a significant infrastructure investment also hinders efforts to transition to cleaner energy alternatives. Instead, the project increases dependency on fossil fuels [2].  

The compressor also presents the risk of significant water and ground pollution. Designated as a toxic waste site by the state, the land on which the station is constructed consists of industrial landfill waste from a time when there were regulations in place for their containment and safe disposal. The site was additionally used as a dumping ground for toxic coal ash, and a storage site for an 11.2 million gallon above-ground leaky diesel fuel tank [1][6][7]. As a result, tests conducted on the dirt and groundwater by Enbridge revealed the presence of arsenic, multiple hydrocarbon compounds, coal ash, diesel fuel, and heavy metals among other contaminants in troubling levels [7][8]. This pollution increases the possibility of community and employee exposure every time the ground is disturbed during construction. The known risk of cancer and neurological development issues upon exposure to these contaminants is an added threat for a community already facing higher rates of cancer, pediatric asthma and cardiovascular/respiratory diseases [1][7].   

Additionally, the compressor’s close proximity to the water presents the risk of pollution leaking into the Weymouth Fore River which surrounds the site. The increase in pressure that the station creates for existing underwater pipelines running under the river also raises the likelihood of leaks directly into the water [9]. The area is prone to flooding even with moderate storms, which among a number of other risks, increases the likelihood of the compressor’s explosion. Although relatively rare, past instances of stations operating at a tenth of the pressure have resulted in devastating results [1]. The town's emergency plan does not include provisions for schools in the area, making any attempt at evacuation in response to such an event challenging [10][28]. The site also raises a number of other issues surrounding ecological impacts (e.g. annual herring run), noise pollution, traffic impacts, and negative economic effects (such as decreases in property values) [4]. 

Primary opposition comes from the community surrounding the compressor. Fore River Residents Against the Compressor Station (FRRACS) is the main group representing this population’s concerns. Since the site’s first proposal they have helped lead a number of actions, such as in-person protests. Two notable ones included a protest in October 2020 held on the Fore River Bridge, and another in December 2019 at which there were four arrests made for blocking trucks from entering the site [3][11]. The group has developed an online presence, using their website “www.nocompressor.com” to raise public awareness, share detailed information on their concerns, conduct additional media outreach, and highlight other sources discussing the topic such as podcasts/news articles. They have also been influential in helping to organize the opposition in a number of ways; publishing information about upcoming events, and encouraging other avenues of action (participation in letters to involved agencies/gov. actors, etc.). The group also pushed for a station to monitor air pollution from the compressor that was successfully installed in the spring of 2021 [12][13]. Data from the monitor is publicly accessible and has already shown the presence of nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and fine particulate matter in the air near the site [17].  

A number of national and state environmental groups have also mobilized against the project, including Mothers Out Front, the Sunrise Movement, the Sierra Club of Massachusetts, and 350 Mass For A Better Future. Additionally, all major local elected officials have expressed their opposition including senators and congressmen, with Governor Baker being a notable exception [1].  

Some US and state policies are in support of increased fossil fuel infrastructure development as a result of their interest in a strengthened economy, energy reliability, and independence. Natural gas companies have run a successful campaign portraying natural gas as a cleaner, even environmentally friendly fossil fuel alternative. This narrative has been widely disputed by scientists and environmental organizations due to concerns around pipeline leaks among other things. However, other policies stand to regulate and decrease investments in this industry in order to preserve safety, public health, and the environment. As a result, in the compressor’s construction and operation, Enbridge had to comply with a number of different regulations [1]. 

As one of the many governmental agencies involved, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) approved the necessary air quality, wetlands, and waterways permits for the project [1]. Additionally, under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30 §§ 61-62I) Enbridge was required to conduct a review of the environmental impact of the project. Ultimately the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs determined that in this case, the less rigorous Environmental Assessment (EA) was sufficient as it provides “meaningful opportunities for public review, analyzes alternatives, and considers cumulative impacts” [30]. FRRACS disagreed but was denied a more in-depth Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [9]. Once the company had acquired all the required permits, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is in charge of interstate energy projects, provided their final approval for the Weymouth station on September 24th, 2020 (less than two weeks after a large unplanned release of gas from the compressor) [15]. As a result of these unplanned releases, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) paused the startup of the station until it was able to conduct a federal safety investigation [16].  

The compressor station passed the federal investigation and has been operational since it first opened on January 23, 2021 [16]. A number of ongoing issues, as predicted, have come to light, including gas releases which have led to four shutdowns of the station and the excavation of pipes in August to add additional protection from saltwater corrosion [18]. Community groups and activists have continued to organize, with FRRACS pushing for the station to be closed permanently. They have attended meetings and court cases and even occupied a local Enbridge office [19]. Despite their efforts, those impacted have been granted no significant remediation efforts, and the station remains open.  

Enbridge is a $170 billion company and is currently responsible for transporting 19% of all natural gas used in the US [1]. As a result, it has significant economic and political influence in the country. In addition, a number of towns received controversial payments from Enbridge, including Weymouth who dropped their legal opposition soon after obtaining $10 million in October 2020, with a potential for an additional $28 million [20].  

The U.S. natural gas transmission network includes more than 279,000 miles of natural gas pipelines and approximately 1,790 compressors. With these stations producing an estimated 50.7 billion cubic feet of methane emissions annually and being often sited in already disadvantaged communities, the issues identified as part of this Enbridge project are not exclusive to the Weymouth compressor. However, the Biden administration’s greater emphasis on environmental protection and the appointment of a new FERC commissioner has led to FERC reviewing the project, specifically examining Environmental Justice concerns, and presenting the possibility of a shutdown [21] for this site and hopefully others. 

There have been a significant number of shutdowns of the compressor due to a variety of different issues since its construction. One notable event occurred in 2020 on September 11th, due to the incorrect use of an O-ring, ill-equipped for tolerating the conditions of the specific operating environment in which it was used. A second incident occurred less than twenty days later on September 30th when an electrical issue caused yet another shutdown. After these issues were addressed, the station was permitted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to reopen [27]. Enbridge spokesperson Max Bergeron explained how the thorough review process that occurred in order for the station to reopen has strengthened their commitment to safety as it allowed the company “to identify and address the issues which led to the unplanned events, and verify that the Weymouth Compressor Station is fully prepared to safely enter service” [27].

The station meets federal safety and air quality standards and has numerous systems, practices, and highly trained experts employed as part of the project to ensure that it operates in a safe manner [25]. One notable safety feature in place is the stacks for venting gas into the air where it is designed to then dissipate safely as part of regular maintenance activities and in the event of safety concerns requiring a shutdown of the station. Enbridge has also worked with Weymouth, Quincy, and Braintree first responders and officials to inform them of these practices and collaborate on safety planning procedures.