I could not agree more with Bob Boeri's letter in response to Diane Leopold's recent commentary about the proposed LNG plant at Cove Point and the need for a full study of its impact ("Proposed LNG production plant merits full review," Dec. 9). I'm not an environmental lawyer, but I am an attorney, and frankly, it's clear to me that a new Environmental Impact Statement is called for in this situation because:
1. The proposed use of the site is materially different (a significant production facility rather than an import and distribution point).
2. The scale of the project is quantitatively and qualitatively different (a liquefaction plant, a 130 megawatt power plant, a six-story, quarter-mile-long sound deflection wall, etc.).
3. The impact on the Chesapeake Bay and areas throughout the state are materially different (as I understand it, 90 1,000-foot tankers per year as opposed to five or fewer traveling there this past year, extensive piping to the site and throughout the state, plus numerous compression and pumping stations along the way).
Dropping a mammoth industrial facility into a pristine spot like Cove Point with significant direct, indirect and cumulative effects is precisely the type of thing an EIS is supposed to evaluate. To claim that one is not required in this situation is silly.
Kevin Bell, Davidsonville
To respond to this letter, send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include your name and contact information.