A company that wants to build a liquefied natural gas terminal in eastern Baltimore County hasn't adequately addressed security concerns about importing LNG into the area, a U.S. Coast Guard report concluded yesterday.
The findings, known as a water suitability assessment, renewed calls from elected officials for AES Corp. to withdrawal its proposal to build an LNG terminal on Sparrows Point.
The Coast Guard would require a combination of armed LNG escorts, patrols from the air and shore and periodic inspections by divers, according to unclassified summaries of the report.
But the agency said that the area could "be made suitable" for the LNG tankers with additional security measures. The Coast Guard findings are considered by the federal authorities when deciding whether to approve a LNG project.
"It's time for [AES] to recognize the inappropriateness of the site," Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith Jr. said. "This Coast Guard report blows out of the water the contention of AES that this is no threat to security or to the Chesapeake Bay."
Kent Morton, manager for AES' Sparrows Point project, issued a written statement yesterday, saying the company believes it can meet the Coast Guard's requirements.
"AES believes the outcome of the Coast Guard's report and the accompanying recommendations are consistent with our expectations for managing LNG traffic with minimal effects on recreational boaters, recreational and commercial fishermen who use the Chesapeake Bay, Patapsco River and adjoining creeks, as well as other maritime Port of Baltimore users," Morton wrote.
But elected officials said they weren't so sure.
"They really don't have a security plan," Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger said of AES. "They're assuming the state or local government will take care of the security."
He and Rep. Elijah E. Cummings said they weren't confident that with its post-Sept. 11 responsibilities, that the Coast Guard has enough resources to oversee the security details necessary for LNG transport in the Baltimore area.
Two submissions
Cummings also noted that AES has submitted its plans to the Coast Guard twice.
"They've had two opportunities to present a plan on how they'd make sure the public would be safe and failed at both attempts," he said.
Elected officials and community leaders who have been fighting the project said they felt vindicated by the report. They have contended the LNG facility would be dangerously close to homes in Dundalk-area neighborhoods, and that the terminal or tankers could be involved in accident or intentionally attacked by terrorists.
"This report shows the [Coast Guard officials] consider this a real threat," said Richard Muth, director of Baltimore County's Office of Homeland Security.
"This is what we've been saying since Day One," said County Councilman John Olszewski Sr. "This should be the nail in the coffin - I hope."
AES wants to build a LNG terminal at the former Bethlehem Steel shipyard to receive large tankers carrying imported, super-chilled, liquefied natural gas. Under the plan, the LNG would be returned to its gaseous state at the facility and pumped through an 87-mile pipeline to be built to southern Pennsylvania for distribution.
The Baltimore sector commander for the Coast Guard doesn't foresee needing to stop traffic on the Chesapeake Bay during the LNG transport, said Petty Officer Ayla Stevens.
But, she said, "It's always a possibility."
Ultimately, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decides where LNG plants can locate. The agency consults the Coast Guard and requires the companies that want to build the LNG terminals to also get Clean Water, Clean Air Act and Coastal Zone Management Act permits.
Draft report in April
The commission plans to issue a draft report on the AES proposal in April. A final decision by the agency is expected in November.
County officials added LNG terminals to a list of facilities that are not allowed in a Chesapeake Bay Critical Area last year.
The county's modified coastal zone management plan has withstood one court challenge. But lawyers for AES have appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Lawyers for the global power supply company and for Baltimore County government presented oral arguments before a panel of federal appellate judges last month.
laura.barnhardt@baltsun.com