LNG Terrorism and Security Issues Move to the Forefront

• Cabrillo Port Critics May Benefit from Opposition Groundwork Against East Coast Project

BY HANS LAETZ

The concept of a floating liquefied natural gas terminal is roiling the waters in Long Island Sound, and California anti-LNG advocates are hoping to link opposition to Malibu’s Cabrillo Port project with the controversy on the East Coast.

On Monday, the entire Connecticut congressional delegation signed a letter opposing a floating LNG terminal proposed for 10 miles off New Haven. The Broadwater Energy concept is very similar to BHP Billiton’s proposed “Cabrillo Port” LNG terminal 13.8 miles off the Malibu coast.

Last week, a Connecticut public safety official said Broadwater’s security plans place a huge, non-reimbursable burden on local disaster responders. “We’re looking at this just like a nuclear power project in terms of the security burdens it puts on the local communities, and the LNG company is not promising us anything in terms of who is going to pay for this,” said Wayne Sanford, Connecticut’s deputy commissioner for Disaster Management and Homeland Security, in a telephone interview from New Haven.

“Any state agency like our emergency management department needs to pay attention to the need to plan for disasters at a plant like this,” Sanford said. “It’s not right for the taxpayers of Connecticut for our agency to develop plans, implement plans and expend money to pay for security plans for this plant, and Broadwater should be paying for those expenditures just like a nuclear power plant would.”

Even though Broadwater is 2550 miles from Cabrillo Port, California LNG opponents are watching it closely. The two LNG terminals are technically very similar, and the Long Island Sound terminal is a few months ahead of Cabrillo Port in the regulatory process.

Responsibilities and costs for similar security plans at Cabrillo Port have been kept discretely secret from the public. Plant opponents note that the 2500-page Environmental Impact Report does not say anything about public safety planning, or the burden that BHP Billiton wants to place on California fire and police agencies, as well as the Coast Guard.

All of the 45 proposed LNG terminals around the country would place added responsibilities and burdens on Coast Guard vessels, and Sanford said, “That’s a big issue, because the Coast Guard may not be able to meet those responsibilities.”

A $17 billion program to rebuild Coast Guard ships and build new aircraft has run into severe trouble that may threaten the agency’s ability to meet existing missions, according to investigations by the Washington Post and New York Times. Eight Coast Guard cutters are docked permanently because major hull cracks developed after they were lengthened.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal last week also demanded that federal officials reject Broadwater because the Coast Guard won’t have enough ships or equipment to guard it, or respond to a catastrophic incident.

On Monday, Blumenthal and some New Haven area members of Congress called for a no-fly zone to prevent terrorist air attacks at Broadwater. “To put it most simply,” he told a small crowd at Groton-New London Airport, “we’re opening a new front in the war against Broadwater.”

A Coast Guard security analysis on Broadwater released last year said additional measures, including more firefighting capability, would be needed to manage risks to navigation safety and security in Long Island Sound. One Congressman there quoted the Coast Guard as saying 70 more people and one more ship would be needed to patrol the LNG terminal adequately.

But the Coast Guard’s Cabrillo Port security assessment has been kept under wraps, and the California LNG project has not faced any questions along those lines. A spokesman for Sheriff Lee Baca, who under California law is the top disaster planner for the Southern California region, said the issue has not come up.

“I don’t even know if Lee has an opinion on that,” said Steve Whitmore, the sheriff’s spokesman.

BHP Billiton officials have said two tugboats that would guard the facility day and night would provide security at the LNG terminal. Additional smaller boats might be deployed when the tugboats are busy assisting LNG carriers, but no information as to whether those boats would be armed, or how they would defend the ships, has been released.

In addition, no details about local law enforcement, fire department or Coast Guard assistance, or disaster planning for Cabrillo Port have been released. Questions have been met with a “no comment due to the potential for terrorism” answer.

Although terrorism and security is a major issue in the East Coast LNG battles, it has taken a relative back seat in the California LNG debate. California Coastal Protection Network’s executive director, Susan Jordan, said she discussed security problems last week in Washington, DC, when she met with East Coast congressional staff. “We met with staffers from the offices of Rep. (Ed) Markey, and Senators (Edward) Kennedy, (Hillary Rodham) Clinton, and (Joseph) Lieberman,” Jordan said. “A big issue is whether or not the Coast Guard is going to be able to offer protection at the level these targets for terrorism are going to need.”

Jordan also met with staff from California’s delegation, and said Congress is planning to watch closely how the Coast Guard, Commerce Department and Environmental Protection Agency enforce the law as they process Cabrillo Port’s license and permits this spring.

California Senator Barbara Boxer is now in charge of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and local Congressman Henry Waxman is in charge of the House Government Reform Committee. Jordan said she discussed Cabrillo Port with staffers for both officials.

“I think BHP Billiton has a tremendous challenge because of the design they have chosen and the strategy they have wedded themselves to,” she said. “BHP Billiton is not entitled to the (smog rule) exemption that they want, and the Congress is going to be watching what happens with EPA on that one.”

EPA originally sought the strictest level of enforcement of smog rules for Cabrillo Port, including smog offset requirements that one official said would make it impossible to build the plant. BHP Billiton contends it should be exempted from the strictest smog rules because Ventura County exempted small generators on Anacapa and San Nicolas islands.

After receiving extensive pressure from Australia and the White House, regional EPA flip-flopped and said they would grant BHPB the exemption. That raised a public outcry, including about 12,000 letters of opposition.

That in turn prompted Ventura’s smog agency last year to tell EPA that the company should be treated like all other industrial smog generators in the area. BHP Billiton called that “a surprise” and said it may sue.

BHP Billiton’s permanently anchored ship would generate in excess of 484 tons of smog-causing chemicals per year into the air just upwind of Malibu, and LNG opponents say this single LNG import process would increase California’s total greenhouse gas contribution by five percent. Although company officials deny those claims, Cabrillo Port would be the largest single source of smog in Ventura County, or in the coastal waters off Southern California.

EPA now says it will issue a final make-or-break decision this spring.